Below is an excerpt from an interview that Gore Vidal -- a "limousine liberal" if ever there was one -- did with Playboy Magazine.

Notice how shockingly candid he is about his anti-family/pro-eugenics views:

--------------------------------

VIDAL: ...how are we to survive on an overpopulated planet? Even if we fully exploit our food resources--including sea farming--and develop effective and equitable international systems of distribution, it still won't be possible to feed the coming generations. So there will be famine and disorder. Meanwhile, we are destroying our environment. Water, earth and air are being poisoned. Climate is being altered. Yet we go on breeding, creating an economy that demands more and more consumers to buy its products--and endless, self-destructive cycle. But though most thoughtful people are aware of what we are doing to ourselves, nothing is being done to restore the planet's ecological balance, to limit human population, to create social and political and economic institutions capable of coping with--let alone solving--such relatively manageable problems as poverty and racial injustice. Who will tell Detroit that they must abandon the fossil fuel-burning combustion engine? No one. And so the air goes bad, cancers proliferate, climate changes.

PLAYBOY: Do you think drastic reform is likely to be effected by our present system of government?

VIDAL: No. And I find that hard to admit, because for all of my adult life I've generally accepted what we call the democratic process. But it no longer works. Look at Congress. Last year, 81 percent of the people wanted strong gun-control legislation. But 70 percent of the Congress did not, on instructions from the National Rifle Association. Congress, President, courts are not able to keep industry from poisoning Lake Erie, or Detroit from making cars that, aside from the carbon monoxide they create, are murderous weapons. To this degree, at least, the New Left is right: The System cannot be reformed. I part company with them on how it's to be replaced. They are vague. I would like to be specific--"programmatic," to use a word they like even less than "liberal."

PLAYBOY: And what is your program?

VIDAL:I would like to replace our present system with an Authority--with a capital A--that would have total control over environment. And environment means not only air, earth and water but the distribution of services and products, and the limitations of births. Where the Authority would have no jurisdiction would be over the private lives of the citizens. Whatever people said, wrote, ate, drank, made love to--as long as it did no harm to others--would be allowed. This, of course, is the direct reverse of our present system. Traditionally, we have always interfered in the private lives of our citizens while allowing any entrepreneur the right to poison a river in order to make money.

PLAYBOY: Isn't what you're proposing--a dictatorship demanding absolute control over the most vital areas of our lives and yet granting absolute social and political freedom--a contradiction in terms? Isn't it inevitable that the power of your Authority would sooner or later circumscribe the private life of every citizen?

VIDAL: Though the Authority would, in its own sphere, be absolute, it would never be the instrument of any one man. There would be no dictator. The thing should be run like a Swiss hotel, with anonymous specialists going about their business under constant review by a council of scientists, poets, butchers, politicians, teachers--the best group one could assemble. No doubt my Venetian ancestry makes me prone to this sort of government, because the Most Serene Republic was run rather like that and no cult of personality ever disturbed those committees that managed the state with great success. It can be done.

PLAYBOY: Would you explain what you mean when you say the Authority would be able to limit births?

VIDAL: I mean just that. Only certain people would be allowed to have children. Nor is this the hardship that it might at first appear. Most people have no talent for bringing up children and they usually admit it--once the damage is done. Unfortunately, our tribal propaganda makes every woman think her life incomplete unless she has made a replica of herself and her loved one. But tribal propaganda can be changed. One can just as easily convince people that to bring an unwanted child into the world is a social crime as grave as murder. Through propaganda, the Japanese made it unfashionable to have big families after the War and so--alone of the Asian countries--kept their population viable.

PLAYBOY: Your ends may be commendable, but let's discuss the means. What would happen to the citizen who didn't wish to live in your brave new world--to the devout Roman Catholic, for example, who refused to accept your population-control measures?

VIDAL: If he didn't want to emigrate, he'd simply have to accept the Authority's restrictions. The right to unlimited breeding is not a constitutional guarantee. If education and propaganda failed, those who violated the birth-control restrictions would have to pay for their act as for any other criminal offense.

PLAYBOY: With imprisonment?

VIDAL: I don't believe in prisons, but there would have to be some sort of punishment. Incontinent breeding endangers the human race. That is a fact with which we now live. If we don't limit our numbers through planned breeding, they will be limited for us in the natural way: famine and war. I think it more civilized to be unnatural and voluntarily limit population.

PLAYBOY: What would become of the family if only a few people were allowed to have children?

VIDAL:The family is an economic unit, not a biological unit; and once the economic need for it is gone--when women are able to get jobs and support themselves--the unit ceases to have any meaning. In today's cities, it is not possible to maintain the old American idea of the family--which was, essentially, peasant; a tribal group working together to create food. For better or worse, we are now on our own, and attempts to revive the ancient family ideal...will fail. As for the children that we do want, I'd like to see them brought up communally, the way they are in certain of the Israeli kibbutzim. I suspect that eventually, the whole idea of parenthood will vanish, when children are made impersonally by laboratory insemination of ova. To forestall the usual outraged letters declaring that I am against the "normal" sexual act, consider what I'm talking about: the creation of citizens, not sexual pleasure, which will continue, as always. Further, I would favor an intelligent program of eugenics that would decide which genetic types should be continued and which allowed to die off. It's within the range of our science to create, very simply, new people physically healthier and intellectually more competent than ourselves. After all, we do it regularly in agriculture and in the breeding of livestock, so why not with the human race? According to the somber Dr. William Shockley--the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who once contravened liberal doctrine by suggesting that we should look for genetic differences among the races--our preservation, through advanced medicine, of physically and mentally weak strains is now making the race less fit with each generation.

PLAYBOY: Your critics would charge that the utopia you propose is actually a nightmarish world reminiscent of Nazi Germany and of George Orwell's 1984. How would you answer them?

VIDAL: Most things human go wrong. The Authority would probably be no exception. But consider the alternatives. Nuclear war to reduce population. World famine. The coming to power of military dictatorships. The crushing of individual freedom. At least the Authority would guarantee more private freedom to its citizens than they now enjoy.

PLAYBOY: Realistically, do you see any chance of such an "enlightened" dictatorship coming to power?

VIDAL: Dictatorship, no; enlightened, yes. Could it happen? Probably not. It takes too long to change tribal thinking. The majority will always prefer a fiery death, howling tribal slogans. A pity--but then, it is not written in the stars that this peculiar race endure forever. Now may be a good time for us to stop. However, since I believe that one must always act as though our affairs were manageable, I should like to see a Party for Human Survival started on an international scale, to try to persuade people to vote willingly for a life-enhancing as well as life-preserving system.

PLAYBOY: Your detractors, on both right and left, would argue that the proposals you've just made reflect a characteristic Vidal trait: intellectual arrogance and a basic elitist contempt for the people and their ability to govern themselves. Do you think they have a point?

VIDAL: I do not admire "the people," as such. No one really does. Their folk wisdom is usually false, their instincts predatory. Even their sense of survival--so highly developed in the individual--goes berserk in the mass. A crowd is a fool. But then, crowds don't govern. In fact, only in America do we pretend to worship the majority, reverently listening to the herd as it Gallups this way and that. A socialist friend of mine in England, a Labor M.P., once said: "You Americans are mad on the subject of democracy. But we aren't, because we know if the people were given their head, they would bring back hanging, the birch and, of course, they'd kick the niggers out of the country. Fortunately, the Labor Party has no traffic with democracy." I want the people to be happy, but more than that, I want them to be humane--something they are not, as everyone from Jesus to Karl Marx has had occasion to notice.

--------------------------------

Now, at this point some of you are probably wondering: when was the above interview conducted? Five years ago? Ten years ago? Fifteen, perhaps?

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

I do agree that the libs today do conceal a similar mindset, but Gore on the other hand is a different charater as he has been (as you have shown) and continues to be open about what he feels. perhaps kids and grandkids allowed him to see things a little clearer. but i do have to tell you that is some explosive shit, thanks for posting it.

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

I do agree that the libs today do conceal a similar mindset, but Gore on the other hand is a different charater as he has been (as you have shown) and continues to be open about what he feels. perhaps kids and grandkids allowed him to see things a little clearer. but i do have to tell you that is some explosive shit, thanks for posting it.

You're quite welcome. I should probably point out that my purpose for posting it was not to start a Gore Vidal bash-fest (which is why I left his name out of the thread title), but to draw attention to the anti-family/pro-eugenicist mindset that seems to dominate the establishment "Left," and to just how long that mindset has been around.

As for those two interviews, there's nothing in either one that indicates whether his view on eugenics is any different now than it was forty years ago.

I, of course, appreciate that he opposed both (a) draconian police state expansion measures -- such as the Military Commissions Act -- and (b) imperialistic wars of aggression when Bush was in office, but then so did Keith Olbermann (along with countless other limousine liberals):

Yet all that righteous indignation on the part of the establishment Left went right out the window the moment Obama took office, and has yet to return, despite the fact that (a) the "Patriot" Act, Military Commissions Act and Presidential Directive 51 are all still on the books, (b) our hornet's nest-stirring foreign policy is no less reckless, costly or imperialistic now than it was a year ago (if anything it's even more so), (c) Wall Street's parasitic fleecing of Main Street has continued unabated, and (d) Obama has broken practically every campaign promise he ever made.

So there's clearly a partisan double standard at play, here. (Much like the partisan double standard that the establishment "Right" employed for six years, as they winked and looked the other way while the Republican-controlled Congress and White House increased big government across the board.)

Now, it may be that Mr. Vidal does not subscribe to this partisan double standard, but until I see compelling evidence to that effect, I'm inclined to assume he's no exception to the general rule.

The key point is that, until he openly says he doesn't, why should anyone assume he doesn't?

From what I've observed over the years, it's extremely rare for someone to dramatically alter his worldview once he's reached middle age (Vidal was 43 when he did the above interview), because by then that someone has way too much ego and emotion invested in that worldview.

You're quite welcome. I should probably point out that my purpose for posting it was not to start a Gore Vidal bash-fest (which is why I left his name out of the thread title), but to draw attention to the anti-family/pro-eugenicist mindset that seems to dominate the establishment "Left," and to just how long that mindset has been around.

As for those two interviews, there's nothing in either one that indicates whether his view on eugenics is any different now than it was forty years ago.

I, of course, appreciate that he opposed both (a) draconian police state expansion measures -- such as the Military Commissions Act -- and (b) imperialistic wars of aggression when Bush was in office, but then so did Keith Olbermann (along with countless other limousine liberals):

Yet all that righteous indignation on the part of the establishment Left went right out the window the moment Obama took office, and has yet to return, despite the fact that (a) the "Patriot" Act, Military Commissions Act and Presidential Directive 51 are all still on the books, (b) our hornet's nest-stirring foreign policy is no less reckless, costly or imperialistic now than it was a year ago (if anything it's even more so), (c) Wall Street's parasitic fleecing of Main Street has continued unabated, and (d) Obama has broken practically every campaign promise he ever made.

So there's clearly a partisan double standard at play, here. (Much like the partisan double standard that the establishment "Right" employed for six years, as they winked and looked the other way while the Republican-controlled Congress and White House increased big government across the board.)

Now, it may be that Mr. Vidal does not subscribe to this partisan double standard, but until I see compelling evidence to that effect, I'm inclined to assume he's no exception to the general rule.

damn fine assessment!

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

I wasnt trying to bash anybody i just thought the idea of 81% of the public wanting gun control sounded ridiculous. I was thinking more in terms of today too whereas i seriously doubt 81% want more gun control.

Logged

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

The key point is that, until he openly says he doesn't, why should anyone assume he doesn't?

From what I've observed over the years, it's extremely rare for someone to dramatically alter his worldview once he's reached middle age (Vidal was 43 when he did the above interview), because by then that someone has way too much ego and emotion invested in that worldview.

I don't know. I think it's kind of simplistic to say that after middle age people don't change their mind about things. I think as people get older they have more knowledge and care less about their ego and what people might think about them.

Logged

"My heroes are people who monkey wrench the new world order". - Jello Biafra

Since the views expressed by Gore Vidal in his 1969 interview are virtually identical to the eugenicist views of both today's global elite and the minions, shills and media whores who lovingly serve them, I thought I'd respond to Vidal's key claims.

Quote

...how are we to survive on an overpopulated planet? Even if we fully exploit our food resources--including sea farming--and develop effective and equitable international systems of distribution, it still won't be possible to feed the coming generations. So there will be famine and disorder.

That is exactly what Malthusian propagandists were waxing alarmist about over two centuries ago. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.

"Here is a difference between the animal and the man. Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens, but the more jayhawks the fewer chickens, while the more men the more chickens. Both the seal and the man eat salmon, but when a seal takes a salmon there is a salmon the less, and were seals to increase past a certain point salmon must diminish; while by placing the spawn of the salmon under favorable conditions man can so increase the number of salmon as more than to make up for all he may take, and thus, no matter how much men may increase, their increase need never outrun the supply of salmon.

"In short, while all through the vegetable and animal kingdoms the limit of subsistence is independent of the thing subsisted, with man the limit of subsistence is, within the final limits of earth, air, water, and sunshine, dependent upon man himself."

Even worse is the fact that modern-day Malthusians tend to be either members or lapdog servants of the very parasitic ruling class that -- by engineering acute poverty in Third World nations -- actually caused the population explosions they incessantly whine about.

The Demographic transition model (DTM) is a model used to represent the process of explaining the transformation of countries from high birth rates and high death rates to low birth rates and low death rates as part of the economic development of a country from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economy. It is based on an interpretation begun in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson of prior observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the past two hundred years.

Most developed countries are beyond stage three of the model; the majority of developing countries are in stage 2 or stage 3. The model was based on the changes seen in Europe so these countries follow the DTM relatively well. Many developing countries have moved into stage 3. The major (relative) exceptions are some poor countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and some Middle Eastern countries, which are poor or affected by government policy or civil strife, notably Pakistan, Palestinian Territories, Yemen and Afghanistan.

Summary of the theory

The transition involves four stages, or possibly five.

* In stage one, pre-industrial society, death rates and birth rates are high and roughly in balance.

* In stage two, that of a developing country, the death rates drop rapidly due to improvements in food supply and sanitation, which increase life spans and reduce disease. These changes usually come about due to improvements in farming techniques, access to technology, basic healthcare, and education. Without a corresponding fall in birth rates this produces an imbalance, and the countries in this stage experience a large increase in population.

* In stage three, birth rates fall due to access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes. Population growth begins to level off.

* During stage four there are both low birth rates and low death rates. Birth rates may drop to well below replacement level as has happened in countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan, leading to a shrinking population, a threat to many industries that rely on population growth. As the large group born during stage two ages, it creates an economic burden on the shrinking working population. Death rates may remain consistently low or increase slightly due to increases in lifestyle diseases due to low exercise levels and high obesity and an aging population in developed countries.

Let's try to understand why, by looking at our own demographic history. As recently as two or three generations ago, mortality rates in the United States were as high as they are now in most third world countries. Opportunities for our grandmothers to work outside the home were limited. And ours was largely an agrarian society in which every family member was needed to work on the farm. Coauthor Frances Lappé's own grandmother, for example, gave birth to nine children, raised them alone on a small farm, and saw only six survive to adulthood. Her story would not be unusual in a still fast-growing third world country today.

Faced with scarcity, poor families needed many children to help with work on the farm, and because of high infant-mortality rates, they needed many more pregnancies and births to achieve the necessary family size.

In the United States, the move to two-children families took place only after a society-wide transition that lowered infant death rates, opened opportunities to women outside the home, and transformed ours into an industrial rather than agrarian economy, so that families no longer relied on their children's labor. If we contrast Lappé's grandmother's story to a latter-day urban middle-class family, we can see that children who were once a source of needed labor are now a source of major costs, including tuition, an extra room in the house, the latest model basketball shoes, and forgone earnings for every year that a professional mom stays home with the kids.

The United States advanced through the falling-birth-rate phase of the demographic transition in response to these societal changes, well before the advent of sophisticated contraceptive technologies, even while the government remained actively hostile to birth control. (As late as 1965, selling contraceptives was still illegal in some states.)

Using our own country's experience to understand rapid population growth in the third world, where poverty is more extreme and widespread, we can now extend our hypothesis concerning the link between hunger and high fertility rates: both persist where societies deny security and opportunity to the majority of their citizens-where infant-mortality rates are high and adequate land, jobs, education, health care, and old-age security are beyond the reach of most people, and where there are few opportunities for women to work outside the home.

Without resources to secure their future, people can rely only on their own families. Thus, when poor parents have lots of children, they are making a rational calculus for survival. High birth rates reflect people's defensive reaction against enforced poverty. For those living at the margin of survival, children provide labor to augment meager family income. In Bangladesh, one study showed that even by the age of six a boy provides labor and/or income for the family. By the age of twelve, at the latest, he contributes more than he consumes.

Population investigators tell us that the benefit children provide to their parents in most third world countries cannot be measured just by hours of labor or extra income. The intangibles are just as important. Bigger families carry more weight in community affairs. With no reliable channels for advancement in sight, parents may hope that the next child will be the one clever or lucky enough to get an education and land a city job despite the odds. In many countries, income from one such job in the city can support a whole family in the countryside.

And impoverished parents know that without children to care for them in old age, they will have nothing. They also realize that none of these possible benefits will be theirs unless they have many children, since hunger and lack of health care will kill many of their offspring before they reach adulthood.

One of the primary causes is the horribly corrupt and parasitic process whereby international bankers extract countless billions in usurious interest from developing economies each year in exchange for the nothing out of which they create the so-called "money" they loan:

-------------------------------------

“The Third World War has already started -- a silent war, not for that reason any less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies….It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam.”

But outlawing fractional reserve banking and allowing countries to issue their own paper money debt-free and interest-free to fund the production and repair of public goods everyone can see and benefit from (roads & bridges, maglev rail, etc.) would be to put the criminals who head the IMF and World Bank out of business, and we all know NWO minions aren't about to call for that.

Another primary cause is the anti-labor/pro-land speculation tax system that nearly all governments impose on their respective populations:

-------------------------------------

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what State absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis original]

"It is incontrovertible, I think, that the rapidly-increasing destruction of the Amazon rain forest...is directly attributable to the fact that the Amazon basin is the only part of Brazil where free or cheap land is available, and this, in turn, is attributable to the fact that nearly four-fifths of Brazil's arable acreage is covered by sprawling latifundios, half of which are held by speculators who produce nothing. Were the artificial scarcity of available land in the rest of Brazil corrected, as the Georgist remedy would unquestionably do, pressure on the Amazon basin would obviously cease."

But you'll never hear NWO minions call for a reversal of that trend, either, because that would mean eliminating economic free-riding by overprivileged, politically-connected absentee landlords and slumlords.

All we'll get are the usual top-down, Nazi-style control measures that merely concentrate that much more political and economic power into the parasitic hands of the very criminal, psychopathic plutocrats who caused this mess in the first place.

I got an idea. How about Gore Vidal can kiss my ass.Pucker up sweet cheeks.

By the way, another in depth and easily verifiable paper by Geolibertarian. How about when we overthrow replace these negative creeps, we make Geolibertarian our economic adviser but with a capital A? What is wrong with people before profit? Is the love of money so dear that someone would prefer to profit in place of feeding people?

Logged

We work jobs we hate to pay for stuff we don't need to impress people we don't like. Am I the crazy one here?

What is wrong with people before profit? Is the love of money so dear that someone would prefer to profit in place of feeding people?

Are you forgetting how many people starved to death in the soviet union? Are you just being sarcastic?

Logged

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

Are you forgetting how many people starved to death in the soviet union? Are you just being sarcastic?

You took my people before profits comment and thought immediately of communism? Once again, end stage communism is indistinguishable from end stage capitalism. A very, very small fraction of people controlling all of the money in a nation.

Profit has its place. Just not before healing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and housing the homeless.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." - Dom Helder Camara

Are you forgetting how many people starved to death in the soviet union? Are you just being sarcastic?

see the movie "The Soviet Story"

And Buckley is another elitist who could have not cared about 99% of the population

and so is Noam Chomsky

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

You took my people before profits comment and thought immediately of communism?

That was my knee jerk yes.

Quote

Once again, end stage communism is indistinguishable from end stage capitalism. A very, very small fraction of people controlling all of the money in a nation.

Yes so we will all fall for the nice happy middle of the road nwo socialism.

I agree capitalism is not perfect but it produces more food, clothing etc across the board. Health care is must be administered by law regardless of financial status, the scrip drug costs is the big problem and thats not the free markets fault.

If you cant clothe yourself in the United States im sorry but you need to be in a strait jacket cause you are brain dead.

I have to go to work so the great depression will have to wait till later, but i will say that it was nothing compared to the situation in the ussr.

Logged

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed “unfit,” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies,” and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of “race and blood” in his 1902 racial epistle “Blood of a Nation,” in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California’s quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations–which functioned as part of a closely-knit network–published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton’s ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel’s principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called “progressives” fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton’s eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind–and less or none of everyone else.

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comSaturday, July 11, 2009

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

The elite agenda for global population control is not a “conspiracy theory,” it is on the record and documented

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comFriday, June 26, 2009

There are still large numbers of people amongst the general public, in academia, and especially those who work for the corporate media, who are still in denial about the on-the-record stated agenda for global population reduction, as well as the consequences of this program that we already see unfolding.

We have compiled a compendium of evidence to prove that the elite have been obsessed with eugenics and its modern day incarnation, population control, for well over 100 years and that goal of global population reduction is still in full force to this day.

The World’s Elite Are Discussing Population Reduction

As was reported only last month by the London Times, a “secret billionaire club” meeting in early May which took place in New York and was attended by David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others was focused around “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population”.

We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and “family planning” authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions.

Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

Billions of People Expected to Die Under Current Codex Alimentarius Guidelines

Barbara MintonNatural NewsJuly 21, 2009

Your right to eat healthy food and use supplements of your choice is rapidly vanishing, but every effort has been made to keep you in the dark about the coming nutricide. Codex Alimentarius is scheduled for full global implementation on December 31, 2009, and not a word has been spoken in main stream media about this threat to humanity. Yet, according to the projections of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a minimum of 3 billion people will die from the Codex mandated vitamin and mineral guideline alone. As the clock ticks toward this irrevocable deadline, the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF) and its medical director, Dr. Rima Laibow, are feverishly working to change Codex guidelines. They need your help.

Former Nazi is father of contemporary Codex

Codex is the enemy of everyone except those who will profit from it, according to Dr. Laibow. She points to its association with those who committed crimes during the Nazi regime. At the end of World War II, the Nuremberg tribunal judged Nazis who had committed horrendous crimes against humanity and sentenced them to prison terms. One of those found guilty was the president of the megalithic corporation I.G. Farben, Hermann Schmitz. His company was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, and had extraordinary political and economic power and influence with the Hitlerian Nazi state. Farben produced the gas used in the Nazi gas chambers, and the steal for the railroads built to transport people to their deaths.

While serving his prison term, Schmitz looked for an alternative to brute force for controlling people and realized that people could be controlled through their food supply. When he got out of prison, he went to his friends at the United Nations (UN) and laid out a plan to take over the control of food worldwide. A trade commission called Codex Alimentarius (Latin for food code) was re-created under the guise of it being a consumer protection commission. But Codex was never in the business of protecting people. It has always been about money and profits at the expense of people.

In 1962, the timetable was set for Codex to be fully implemented on a global level by December 31, 2009. Under Codex, committees were established to create guidelines on such topics as fish and fisheries, fats and oils, fruits and vegetables, ground nuts, nutrition, food for specialized uses, and vitamins and minerals. There were 27 committees in all, creating a huge bureaucracy. Under Codex there are over 4,000 guidelines and regulations on everything that can be put into your mouth with the exception of pharmaceuticals which are not regulated by Codex.

Codex is a weapon being used to reduce the level of nutrition worldwide

Codex is an industry dominated regulation setting organization, and as such has no legal standing. Participation in Codex is said to be voluntary. But Codex has risen to the level of de facto legal standing because Codex is administered by the WHO and FAO. They fund it and run it at the request of the UN. Since the WHO and FAO are supposed to be about health, there is conflict of interest. The committees of Codex work up guidelines, rules and regulations, and present them to a Codex commission for ratification. Once they are ratified and approved by consensus, they become mandatory for any country that is a member of the WHO.

Codex was accepted when the WTO was formed in 1994 as a means of harmonizing food standards globally for easy trade between countries. As a result, countries must harmonize with Codex if they want to have any standing in a trade dispute. When disputes arise and countries are pulled in to WTO, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins, regardless of the merits of its case.

Dr. Laiblow sees codex as a weapon to make every nation scurry to become compliant to the decline in nutritional standards. She points out that compliance in the U.S. will mark the end of its consumer protection laws. Codex will not serve consumers. Codex will serve the interests of the medical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, chemical, and big agricultural industries.

Under Codex, nutrients are classified as poisons

The Dietary Substances Health and Education Act (DSHEA), was signed into law in 1994 for the purpose of ensuring that safe and appropriately labeled products would remain available to those who wanted to use them. In the findings associated with this law, Congress stated that there may be a positive relationship between sound dietary practice and good health, and a connection between dietary supplement use, reduced health-care expenses, and disease prevention. Under DSHEA, nutrients and herbs are classified as food. There is no upper limit set, and access is freely given. Americans are allowed to have any nutrients they want, because under English common law, anything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted.

Codex, on the other hand, is based on Napoleonic law under which anything not expressly permitted is forbidden. Therefore, only what is expressly allowed under Codex will be permitted, and everything else is forbidden. In 1994, the same year DSHEA was signed, Codex had nutrients declared to be toxic and poisonous. And as poisons, they claimed people must be protected from them through the use of toxicology and risk assessment, under which scientists test small doses on animals until they are able to discern an impact. They then take the first sign of the most minimal impact and divide this amount by 100 to establish a safety margin required from these poisons. This means that the largest dose of any nutrient allowed under Codex is 1/100th of the amount shown to produce the first discernable impact.

Nutrients allowed under codex are limited to those on the positive list, expected to contain only 18 nutrients, one of them being fluoride. Dr. Laibow points out that although fluoride has no biological benefit whatsoever, it does make people complacent.

Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression

President elect sets out on agenda to revive frightening Lieberman/Warner legislation

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comWednesday, November 19, 2008

President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change,” Obama said in a video message to governors and others attending a Los Angeles summit on the issue.

“In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050,” reports the Associated Press.

Obama’s mission is to revive and expand the defeated 2007 Lieberman/Warner bill, “America’s Climate Security Act,” which proposed a cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions 70 per cent by 2050.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s economic analysis of the bill forecast that a whopping $2.9 trillion would be shaved off the economy by the year 2050 if the legislation was enacted. It would also reduce GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930, and millions of jobs would have been lost within the first 10 years of its passage.

As JunkScience.com’s Steven Milloy highlights, “For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.”

And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

Zero carbon emissions? That would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.

Correction – stone age man was at least able to make use of fire – that too would presumably be banned under the measures being proposed.

Global transport of any kind would cease, manufacturing and production would be a thing of the past, the global economy would crumble, communications would go dark as computer networks and the Internet are abolished. Millions would freeze to death as a result of not being able to heat their homes.

We’d be back to living in caves and hunting for food with spears.

Presumably, since livestock flatulence accounts for more green house gas releases than cars, planes and all other forms of transport or industry put together, cows would also become an endangered species and global meat farming would cease to exist. This sounds like a joke but this is actually what these crazies are proposing.

The sheer ludicrousness of the Carnegie report is on a parallel with a March 2007 New York Times editorial, which subtly pushed the notion that humans emit carbon dioxide when they exhale, therefore should all be taxed for breathing!

And remember that all of this is being pushed in the name of a scientific theory that is being increasingly debunked on an almost daily basis.

How many more "dots" must be "connected" before the American people finally awaken to the "big picture" -- i.e., to the all-out war being waged against them by the America-hating global "elite" and their puppet politicians?

So there's clearly a partisan double standard at play, here. (Much like the partisan double standard that the establishment "Right" employed for six years, as they winked and looked the other way while the Republican-controlled Congress and White House increased big government across the board.)

Yes - I remember Bush saying something like how things would be a lot easier in a dictatorship. "As long as I'm the dictator". Now the people to were outraged at his dictatorial style are willing to hand full control over to Obama. Amazing.

Logged

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Matthew 25:40

Behind the theory we have been considering lies a theory we have yet to consider. The current doctrine as to the derivation and law of wages finds its strongest support in a doctrine as generally accepted -- the doctrine to which Malthus has given his name -- that population naturally tends to increase faster than subsistence. These two doctrines, fitting in with each other, frame the answer which the current political economy gives to the great problem we are endeavoring to solve.

In what has preceded, the current doctrine that wages are determined by the ratio between capital and laborers has, I think, been shown to be so utterly baseless as to excite surprise as to how it could so generally and so long obtain. It is not to be wondered at that such a theory should have arisen in a state of society where the great body of laborers seem to depend for employment and wages upon a separate class of capitalists, nor yet that under these conditions it should have maintained itself among the masses of men, who rarely take the trouble to separate the real from the apparent. But it is surprising that a theory which on examination appears to be so groundless could have been successively accepted by so many acute thinkers as have during the present century devoted their powers to the elucidation and development of the science of political economy.

The explanation of this otherwise unaccountable fact is to be found in the general acceptance of the Malthusian theory. The current theory of wages has never been fairly put upon its trial, because, backed by the Malthusian theory, it has seemed in the minds of political economists a self-evident truth. These two theories mutually blend with, strengthen, and defend each other, while they both derive additional support from a principle brought prominently forward in the discussions of the theory of rent -- viz., that past a certain point the application of capital and labor to land yields a diminishing return. Together they give such an explanation of the phenomena presented in a highly organized and advancing society as seems to fit all the facts, and which has thus prevented closer investigation.

Which of these two theories is entitled to historical precedence it is hard to say. The theory of population was not formulated in such a way as to give it the standing of a scientific dogma until after that had been done for the theory of wages. But they naturally spring up and grow with each other, and were both held in a form more or less crude long prior to any attempt to construct a system of political economy. It is evident, from several passages, that though he never fully developed it, the Malthusian theory was in rudimentary form prescrit in the mind of Adam Smith, and to this, it seems to me, must be largely due the misdirection which on the subject of wages his speculations took. But, however this may be, so closely are the two theories connected, so completely do they complement each other, that Buckle, reviewing the history of the development of political economy in his "Examination of the Scotch Intellect during the Eighteenth Century," attributes mainly to Malthus the honor of "decisively proving" the current theory of wages by advancing the current theory of the pressure of population upon subsistence. He says in his "History of Civilization in England," Vol. 3, Chap. 5:

"Scarcely had the Eighteenth Century passed away when it was decisively proved that the reward of labor depends solely on two things; namely, the magnitude of that national fund out of which all labor is paid, and the number of laborers among whom the fund is to be divided. This vast step in our knowledge is due, mainly, though not entirely, to Malthus, whose work on population, besides marking an epoch in the history of speculative thought, has already produced considerable practical results, and will probably give rise to others more considerable still. It was published in 1798; so that Adam Smith, who died in 1790, missed what to him would have been the intense pleasure of seeing how, in it, his own views were expanded rather than corrected. Indeed, it is certain that without Smith there would have been no Malthus; that is, unless Smith had laid the foundation, Malthus could not have raised the superstructure."

The famous doctrine which ever since its enunciation has so powerfully influenced thought, not alone in the province of political economy, but in regions of even higher speculation, was formulated by Malthus in the proposition that, as shown by the growth of the North American colonies, the natural tendency of population is to double itself at least every twenty-five years, thus increasing in a geometrical ratio, while the subsistence that can be obtained from land "under circumstances the most favorable to human industry could not possibly be made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio, or by an addition every twenty-five years of a quantity equal to what it at present produces." "The necessary effects of these two different rates of increase, when brought together," Mr. Malthus naïvely goes on to say, "will be very striking." And thus (Chap. I) he brings them together:

"Let us call the population of this island eleven millions; and suppose the present produce equal to the easy support of such a number. In the first twenty-five years the population would be twenty-two millions, and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years the population would be forty-four millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of thirty-three millions. In the next period the population would be equal to eighty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence just equal to the support of half that number. And at the conclusion of the first century, the population would be a hundred and seventy-six millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of fifty-five millions; leaving a population of a hundred and twenty-one millions totally unprovided for.

"Taking the whole earth instead of this island, emigration would of course be excluded; and supposing the present population equal to a thousand millions, the human species would increase as the numbers 11 21 41 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and subsistence as 11 21 3, 4, 5, 6, 71 8, 9. In two centuries the population would be to the means of subsistence as 256 to 9; in three centuries, 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable."

Such a result is of course prevented by the physical fact that no more people can exist than can find subsistence, and hence Malthus' conclusion is, that this tendency of population to indefinite increase must be held back either by moral restraint upon the reproductive faculty, or by the various causes which increase mortality, which he resolves into vice and misery. Such causes as prevent propagation he styles the preventive check; such causes as increase mortality he styles the positive check. This is the famous Malthusian doctrine, as promulgated by Malthus himself in the "Essay on Population."

It is not worth while to dwell upon the fallacy involved in the assumption of geometrical and arithmetical rates of increase, a play upon proportions which hardly rises to the dignity of that in the familiar puzzle of the hare and the tortoise, in which the hare is made to chase the tortoise through all eternity without coming up with him. For this assumption is not necessary to the Malthusian doctrine, or at least is expressly repudiated by some of those who fully accept that doctrine; as, for instance, John Stuart Mill, who speaks of it as "an unlucky attempt to give precision to things which do not admit of it, which every person capable of reasoning must see is wholly superfluous to the argument." The essence of the Malthusian doctrine is, that population tends to increase faster than the power of providing food, and whether this difference be stated as a geometrical ratio for population and an arithmetical ratio for subsistence, as by Malthus; or as a constant ratio for population and a diminishing ratio for subsistence, as by Mill, is only a matter of statement. The vital point, on which both agree, is, to use the words of Malthus, "that there is a natural tendency and constant effort in population to increase beyond the means of subsistence."

The Malthusian doctrine, as at present held, may be thus stated in its strongest and least objectionable form:

That population, constantly tending to increase, must, when unrestrained, ultimately press against the limits of subsistence, not as against a fixed, but as against an elastic barrier, which makes the procurement of subsistence progressively more and more difficult. And thus, wherever reproduction has had time to assert its power, and is unchecked by prudence, there must exist that degree of want which will keep population within the bounds of subsistence.

Although in reality not more repugnant to the sense of harmonious adaptation by creative beneficence and wisdom than the complacent no-theory which throws the responsibility for poverty and its concomitants upon the inscrutable decrees of Providence, without attempting to trace them, this theory, in avowedly making vice and suffering the necessary results of a natural instinct with which are linked the purest and sweetest affections, comes rudely in collision with ideas deeply rooted in the human mind, and it was, as soon as formally promulgated, fought with a bitterness in which zeal was often more manifest than logic. But it has triumphantly withstood the ordeal, and in spite of the refutations of the Godwins, the denunciations of the Cobbetts, and all the shafts that argument, sarcasm, ridicule, and sentiment could direct against it, today it stands in the world of thought as an accepted truth, which compels the recognition even of those who would fain disbelieve it.

The causes of its triumph, the sources of its strength, are not obscure. Seemingly backed by an indisputable arithmetical truth -- that a continuously increasing population must eventually exceed the capacity of the earth to furnish food or even standing room, the Malthusian theory is supported by analogies in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, where life everywhere beats wastefully against the barriers that hold its different species in check -- analogies to which the course of modern thought, in leveling distinctions between different forms of life, has given a greater and greater weight; and it is apparently corroborated by many obvious facts, such as the prevalence of poverty, vice, and misery amid dense populations; the general effect of material progress in increasing population without relieving pauperism; the rapid growth of numbers in newly settled countries and the evident retardation of increase in more densely settled countries by the mortality among the class condemned to want.

The Malthusian theory furnishes a general principle which accounts for these and similar facts, and accounts for them in a way which harmonizes with the doctrine that wages are drawn from capital, and with all the principles that are deduced from it. According to the current doctrine of wages, wages fall as increase in the number of laborers necessitates a more minute division of capital; according to the Malthusian theory, poverty appears as increase in population necessitates the more minute division of subsistence. It requires but the identification of capital with subsistence, and number of laborers with population, an identification made in the current treatises on political economy, where the terms are often converted, to make the two propositions as identical formally as they are substantially. And thus it is, as stated by Buckle in the passage previously quoted, that the theory of population advanced by Malthus has appeared to prove decisively the theory of wages advanced by Smith.

Ricardo, who a few years subsequent to the publication of the "Essay on Population" corrected the mistake into which Smith had fallen as to the nature and cause of rent, furnished the Malthusian theory an additional support by calling attention to the fact that rent would increase as the necessities of increasing population forced cultivation to less and less productive lands, or to less and less productive points on the same lands, thus explaining the rise of rent. In this way was formed a triple combination, by which the Malthusian theory has been buttressed on both sides -- the previously received doctrine of wages and the subsequently received doctrine of rent exhibiting in this view but special examples of the operation of the general principle to which the name of Malthus has been attached -- the fall in wages and the rise in rents which come with increasing population being but modes in which the pressure of population upon subsistence shows itself.

Thus taking its place in the very framework of political economy (for the science as currently accepted has undergone no material change or improvement since the time of Ricardo, though in some minor points it has been cleared and illustrated), the Malthusian theory, though repugnant to sentiments before alluded to, is not repugnant to other ideas which, in older countries at least, generally prevail among the working classes; but, on the contrary, like the theory of wages by which it is supported and in turn supports, it harmonizes with them. To the mechanic or operative the cause of low wages and of the inability to get employment is obviously the competition caused by the pressure of numbers, and in the squalid abodes of poverty what seems clearer than that there are too many people?

But the great cause of the triumph of this theory is, that, instead of menacing any vested right or antagonizing any powerful interest, it is eminently soothing and reassuring to the classes who, wielding the power of wealth, largely dominate thought. At a time when old supports were falling away, it came to the rescue of the special privileges by which a few monopolize so much of the good things of this world, proclaiming a natural cause for the want and misery which, if attributed to political institutions, must condemn every government under which they exist. The "Essay on Population" was avowedly a reply to William Godwin's "Inquiry concerning Political justice," a work asserting the principle of human equality; and its purpose was to justify existing inequality by shifting the responsibility for it from human institutions to the laws of the Creator. There was nothing new in this, for Wallace, nearly forty years before, had brought forward the danger of excessive multiplication as the answer to the demands of justice for an equal distribution of wealth; but the circumstances of the times were such as to make the same idea, when brought forward by Malthus, peculiarly grateful to a powerful class, in whom an intense fear of any questioning of the existing state of things had been generated by the outburst of the French Revolution.

Now, as then, the Malthusian doctrine parries the demand for reform, and shelters selfishness from question and from conscience by the interposition of an inevitable necessity. It furnishes a philosophy by which Dives as he feasts can shut out the image of Lazarus who faints with hunger at his door; by which wealth may complacently button up its pocket when poverty asks an alms, and the rich Christian bend on Sundays in a nicely upholstered pew to implore the good gifts of the All Father without any feeling of responsibility for the squalid misery that is festering but a square away. For poverty, want, and starvation are by this theory not chargeable either to individual greed or to social maladjustments; they are the inevitable results of universal laws, with which, if it were not impious, it were as hopeless to quarrel as with the law of gravitation. In this view, he who in the midst of want has accumulated wealth, has but fenced in a little oasis from the driving sand which else would have overwhelmed it. He has gained for himself, but has hurt nobody. And even if the rich were literally to obey the injunctions of Christ and divide their wealth among the poor, nothing would be gained. Population would be increased, only to press again upon the limits of subsistence or capital, and the equality that would be produced would be but the equality of common misery. And thus reforms which would interfere with the interests of any powerful class are discouraged as hopeless. As the moral law forbids any forestalling of the methods by which the natural law gets rid of surplus population and thus holds in check a tendency to increase potent enough to pack the surface of the globe with human beings as sardines are packed in a box, nothing can really be done, either by individual or by combined effort, to extirpate poverty, save to trust to the efficacy of education and preach the necessity of prudence.

A theory that, falling in with the habits of thought of the poorer classes, thus justifies the greed of the rich and the selfishness of the powerful, will spread quickly and strike its roots deep. This has been the case with the theory advanced by Malthus.

Gore Vidal: Perpetual War for Perpetual PeaceBy B. John Zavrel ...His latest book, actually a collection of articles titled "Perpertual War for Perpetual Peace" , published in 2002, caused a sensation, if not a scandal in this country. His sharp intellect and critical view of what the renowned author sees as wrong in America, comes as a shock to the average American reader.

The United States has been engaged in what the great historian Charles A. Beard called "perpetual war for perpetual peace." The Federation of American Scientists has catalogued nearly two hundred military incursions since 1945 in which the United States has been the agressor. In a series of penetrating and alarming essays, whose centerpiece is a commentary on the events of September 11, 2002 (deemed too controversial to be published in America until now), ......fifty years ago, Harry Truman replaced the old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual wars, hot, cold, and tepid. Exact date of replacement? February 27, 1947. Place: The White House Cabinet Room. Cast: Truman, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, a handful of congressional leaders. Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg told Truman that he could have his militarized economy only IF he first "scared the hell out of the American people" that the Russians were coming. Truman obliged. The perpetual war began. Representative government of, by, and for the people is now a faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congress and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media. Now, with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon, we are entering a new and dangerous phase.

The only way we can overcome peace and its negative economic impact on America’s great MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, as well as its negative political impact on the NEO-FASCISTS who profit from tyranny, is to make certain that our world is in perpetual chaos and through the perpetration of PERPETUAL WAR.

Vast fortunes are made as our military machine marches over the corpses of millions of innocent men, women and children across the globe. Aircraft, bomb, chemical agent, and body bag manufacturers glory in reading their corporate quarterly reports during times of war. The corporate chieftains secret their BLOOD MONEY in foreign tax havens and numbered offshore accounts.

Their wealth trickles down to the rest of the populace as they purchase luxury cars, big screen TVs, four-wheelers, jet skis, and motor homes. The little people then have the money with which to buy junk food, alcohol and drugs as well as money to pay taxes to oil both the machines of war and THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, America’s other growth industry.

When the targets of our fabricated wrath are finally subdued, the corporate raiders and predators enter the conquered nation to clear-cut their forests, suck the oil from under their lands, and give the survivors jobs at starvation wages in our factories that are moved overseas to exploit cheap labor.

At that point, peace reigns over the conquered people and it is time for American might to move to a new part of the globe in order to keep the flames of PERPETUAL WAR alive. Peace carries too high a price, and thus our political masters are ever vigilant in their fight against the specter of PEACE ON EARTH and GOOD WILL TOWARD OTHERS.

Fellow Americans, the time has come for us to stand up against tyranny, hatred, bigotry, greed, arrogance, and an economic and political system that thrives on PERPETUAL WAR, with its attendant misery, starvation, suffering, and death.

Let us salute our glorious STARS AND STRIPES while holding an olive branch, rather than a cluster bomb. Let us become worthy of being thought of by the world as a nation UNDER GOD, rather than a nation UNDER GREED.

You should also recall that both the Auchinclosses and the Bouviers lived in Newport, RI as nearby neighbors to Senator Pell even if only for the summertime and that George deMohrenschildt knew the French Bouviers very, very well. A young Jackie "Bouvier" Kennedy used to bounce on George's knee as a child and called him "Uncle George" as well. Personally I think that George was quite despondent about any role he may have inadvertently or semi-deliberately played, either by contributing to or causing the death of President Kennedy

This Janet Bouvier is married an Auchincloss, where the real mony in the family resided. This is the home where the step children Jackie Kennedy and Gore Vidal were raised.

Logged

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Microsoft founder Bill Gates will join fellow elitists for the first time at the 2010 Bilderberg conference currently taking place in Sitges Spain, after he apparently attempted to pull a bait and switch by pretending to attend another event before being forced to admit to journalists that he will give a speech at the globalist confab.

Gates let slip that he would make his debut at Bilderberg after being asked by journalists from 20 Minutos, a free Spanish newspaper which is published daily in numerous Spanish cities as well as others around the world.

According to the report, Gates told reporters, “I’m one of those who will be present,” adding that he will take part in a debate with fellow globalists on the subjects of “energy and the needs of the poorest,” as well as climate change, renewable energy and the economic crisis.

Indicating that he will also give a speech to the Bilderberg elitists, Gates said, “I hope not to bore.”

It appears as though Gates initially tried to throw reporters off the scent by claiming he was in Barcelona to attend a Global Health Institute conference which was then mysteriously “cancelled”.

The Spanish report also confirms that Spain’s Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero will attend the conference this afternoon, where he will be joined by Queen Beatrix of Holland, ECB Chairman Jean Claude Trichet as well as former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld has sporadically attended Bilderberg meetings in the past but he is not a regular visitor to the annual gatherings. For Gates, this is his first time at the conference although his wife Melinda is a regular attendee.

Both Gates and Rumsfeld’s presence at this year’s event indicates that some very important developments are set to unfold over the course of the next 12 months, particularly with regard to Iran as well as the global warming agenda, which has been on the ropes since the Climategate scandal and the failed Copenhagen summit in December.

Gates’ Bilderberg presentation will also likely include information about his eugenicist projects to lower global population figures.

During a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, Gates told the audience that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions to almost zero.

Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

A joint World Health Organization-Rockefeller inoculation program against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines in the early 1990’s was in fact a covert trial on using vaccines to medically abort women’s babies.

“Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG,” writes historian F. William Engdahl in his article, Bill Gates And Neo-Eugenics: Vaccines To Reduce Population. “That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. The tetanus disease was indeed, also rather rare. It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.”

Gates recently announced that he would be funding a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man’s scrotum to render him infertile for six months. “The foundation has funded a new “sweat-triggered vaccine delivery” program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is described as a way to “…develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines,” writes health researcher Mike Adams.

Gates is likely to be asked by other Bilderbergers how to get the global warming carbon tax agenda back on track after a drastic plummet in the credibility of climate change alarmists since the Climategate scandal broke.

Part of Bilderberg’s agenda to usher in a “post-industrial revolution” revolves around mandating western countries to adopt disastrous “green economy” initiatives, which as Spain has painfully experienced at first hand, cost over 2.2 jobs for every “green” job created.

The carbon tax agenda is also about enforcing a consumption tax which will drastically reduce living standards and leave people more concerned about feeding their families with little time to worry about Bilderberg’s undemocratic scheming, something the Bilderberg hierarchy are keen to oversee in an effort to squash the growing global awareness of Bilderberg and the new world order, because they view “people with income” as “a threat” to their plans for world government.

Watch Bill Gates’ comments on using vaccines to lower global population in the clip below.

The purpose of this article is to give a brief outline of how the elites, and the Rockefellers in particular, are using food as a weapon.

Since the Rockefeller family came to power (especially after gaining a monopoly with Standard Oil) they have manipulated our government into ruining our financial system by way of the Federal Reserve, energy through oil dependency and food with GMOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms). The intention is to rob us blind and kill us. It’s time to wake up.

Bill Gates has teamed with the Rockefellers, Monsanto and the government of Norway in the Doomsday Seed Vault, in which organic seed is stored for some vague anticipated world catastrophe.

The official name of this program is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.

It the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control over America and the rest of the world. There is no question that Americans are targeted for depopulation: GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) food has saturated American farmlands. GMOs are dangerous and the proliferation of corn crops (used as sweetener, animal feed, processed food, etc) in America is shortening our life spans. Our water is polluted, containing over 60,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested for safety. Our air is toxic, and the US is one of the most targeted areas for chemtrails. This is just the tip of the iceberg, the things we know about. The focus of this article is revealing the link between the Rockefellers and their intended use of food as a weapon, which is more powerful than military domination and energy control.

While Agenda 21 was introduced in 1992, the elite collectivists, lead by the Rockefellers, have been pushing population control on America and the world for generations. In 1992, this depopulation and control policy was modernized and given a name: Agenda 21, or the Agenda for the 21st century. The premise for depopulation and control is to preserve the environment. One would have to be an idiot to disregard environmental concerns, however, the solutions that Agenda 21 offers fail to address the real issues. The primary tools that Agenda 21 Sustainable Development uses are global warming lies, water shortages (like the man made drought in California, which also causes food shortages) and the Endangered Species Act (designed to take away private property, which is the base of wealth creation and freedom).

Food control goes hand in hand with population control. The eugenics (improvement of humans through selective breeding, often using brutal methods like genocide and forced sterilization) program of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany was revealed after WWII. Obviously, people did not have a high opinion of eugenics, so, according to William Engdahl, author of “Seeds of Destruction”, the Rockefeller strategists shifted their profile to champion the causes of the environment, resource scarcity and overpopulation. The policy of population control remained, despite the illusion of caring concern- which is simply marketing; the word eugenics has been renamed as “human genetics”. This scheme for improving their image worked for them before, using “philanthropy” and tax-free foundations, when the Rockefellers became very unpopular following the Ludlow Massacre.

The Ludlow Massacre took place at a Rockefeller owned coal mine in Colorado. The mines were notoriously unsafe, which caused many deaths and the workers were paid in scrip (currency substitute that is often credit), to be spent at the Rockefeller company stores. When the workers went on strike, they were evicted from their homes and lived with their families in tent cities. Then they were provoked through murder, machine gun spray, harassment, etc, in order to goad the workers into violence. This was used as a pretext to get the National Guard involved; the state militia opened fire on the tent cities, resulting in up to 53 deaths, 13 of whom were women and children. So, the Rockefellers created a propaganda campaign to polish their tarnished image through tax exempt foundations. These foundations are hardly philanthropic; they are used to fund the destruction of America (please read this excellent interview transcript by G. Edward Griffin to discover the true nature of tax exempt foundations).

Why do you think Senator Jay Rockefeller is pushing so hard to censor the Internet?

Today, the Rockefellers use coercive population control tactics and food as a weapon through a front organization, CGIAR (Consultative Group on Agricultural Resources) as the Rockefellers are trying to distance themselves from public- just like the Rothschild clan has done. Engdahl reports that CGIAR operates under the umbrella of the UN World Bank, and its primary focus is the spread of GMO crops. CGIAR was created by the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation, along with the UN World Bank in 1971 with $350 million dollars a year in funding.

The Rockefeller’s “Green Revolution”, which was the implementation of new farming methods in developing countries, like Mexico, India and Asia, increased crop yields, but ended in disaster; the program lasted from the 1940’s- 1970’s. The “Green Revolution”, funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the US government, was a farming experiment with these results:

A monopoly is exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes it possible to manipulate prices. This is accomplished through governmental regulations used to enforce the monopoly. The way to break a monopoly is to remove those laws. This is simple, but not easy in the case of Monsanto, because the roots extend to international, federal, state, and local government regulations. Monopoly owners corner a market by taking control of the resource AND preventing others from using the resource.

Monsanto’s monopoly is firmly entrenched within the US government.

The famous robber baron JD Rockefeller refined this method of monopolization with Standard Oil; he created a cartel (an agreement between companies to avoid competition) with the companies he could not buy or force out of business through extraordinarily corrupt business practices. Competition creates a free market; JD Rockefeller is famous for saying, “Competition is a sin.” Of course, the Rockefellers have an enormous stake in biotechnology and the Rockefeller Foundation funded the biology centers and research that led to the creation of GMOs; F. William Engdahl’s book, “Seeds of Destruction”, is highly recommended for the complete details.

This article is intended as a brief sketch to explore the expanse of the roots of Monsanto & understand the machinery of a monopoly, therefore, the science and health issues behind GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be covered in detail. GMOs are created by injecting virus and/ or bacteria into a plant or animal cell, along with the DNA of life forms that would never mate in nature (like spiders and goats).

There is extensive proof that GMOs are detrimental to health. Monsanto’s business practices are corrupt- for example, there have been cases where seed sold as non- GMO were actually contaminated. GMOs are not limited to food; industrial chemicals, plastic and drugs can be grown in plants like corn, and there is an overwhelming chance that you have ingested these chemicals and drugs, if you live in America. Cross pollination is rampant and is an enormous problem, thereby polluting non-GMO farms and endangering America’s food supply. Most Americans are unaware that up to 75% of their daily diet is comprised of GMO food.

This is all part of the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development depopulation program (remember that the Rockefellers have overwhelming influence with the UN). Monsanto promises their seeds are more prolific and can feed more people, but the opposite has often proven to be the truth. The most shocking part of this is that the USDA co-owns a patent, along with Monsanto, on a gene (the Terminator) that can destroy food and be used as a bioweapon.

Monsanto’s monopoly is firmly entrenched within the US government:

1. US Patent Office: this where the problem began, in allowing a patent on life. Monsanto’s seeds are protected under an ‘Intellectual Property’ patent; the seeds are good for one season. When a farmer buys Monsanto seed, he also signs the Technology Agreement that stipulates he may not collect seed and replant it. While the farmer is free to plant any type of seed he wishes, the courts have maintained that farmers are not tied to Monsanto seeds in future seasons. However, it is difficult and costly to stop using Monsanto seed once a farmer has planted it because he may not collect and replant the Monsanto seeds collected after harvest, and must buy all new seeds for the new season. Even if a farmer, having once planted GMO seed, then wishing to switch back, faces the issue of “volunteers” (seeds in the ground from the previous planting) which appear and Monsanto has aggressively sued farmers for patent infringement.

Monsanto is the GMO leader because it has a proprietary patent on the method for creating GMOs, so other companies pay an exorbitant fee to make GMOs.

Monsanto is now patenting non GMO seed as well; this is essentially a patent on nature. Monsanto owns over 20,000 patents.

2. FDA (US Food & Drug Administration)*: Many people rely on the FDA to determine the safety of food or a product. The FDA is corrupt, particularly within the realm of GMOs. The only “testing” for safety that is required is for the GMO producer to submit a self authored report on the new GMO’s safety. This fraud was accomplished by Michael Taylor, a lawyer who went to work for the FDA and established the “no testing” policy by reasoning that GMOs are “SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT” to food, and food has already been determined to be safe. However, this is an oxymoron because in order to receive a patent, the new product must be different. Michael Taylor (second cousin to Tipper Gore) is notorious for his “revolving door” employment within the US government and Monsanto- he was recently chosen by Obama as the Deputy Commissioner for foods in the FDA.

GMO seed companies prohibit any testing of their products, by contract, to their buyers.

The FDA has made it illegal to label GMO foods as containing GMOs, as they are GRAS (generally recognized as safe). Some companies, like Whole Foods, are starting to label their products as NO GMOs.

3. *President George HW Bush*, under executive power, mandated the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence of 1992, the same year that Agenda 21 was introduced. This policy requires NO health or safety testing before a GMO product is released into the public.

4. *USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)*: This government body determines whether a plant is safe to grow. GMOs are unsafe to grow; wind, seeds blown from trucks and insect pollination bring GMO pollen and seeds into non-GMO farmland and contaminate the nearby non-GMO farms.

Outrageously, the USDA co-owns the patent on the “Terminator Gene”, which means that the seeds have been modified to “commit suicide” after one season, and will not germinate if they are planted in a subsequent season. This technology could potentially wipe out food on the planet in one season. The US government has been funding GMO research since 1983; William Engdahl has said that this will give the owners control of the food seeds over entire regions and nations, when commercialized.

The USDA and the co-owner of the “terminator” patent promised not to commercialize it in 1999, however, in 2001, they signed a commercialization agreement. Seven years later, Monsanto bought out the co-owner and is now partnered with the USDA for the “Terminator” patent. Food can be used as a weapon.

The USDA has also engaged in illegal dispersal of subsidies to Monsanto as well as giving farmers a break on crop insurance premiums if they used Monsanto seeds, which is tantamount to product endorsement.

Remember the USDA is business partners with Monsanto. This is where your tax dollars are going. We are paying for our government to poison us.

5. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency)*: The EPA is responsible for determining the safety of GMOs in the environment. GMOs can withstand more pesticides and herbicides than normal crops, so more of these toxins are used and a resistance to the toxins has occurred. GMO pollen has been proven to be detrimental to certain insects; many believe that the great bee die- off in the US is a result of large quantities of pesticides sprayed on GMO crops plus, some crops have pesticides contained in their the DNA. The EPA often relies on the chemical producer for its research and safety testing.

The EPA is a corrupt agency that continually fails to protect public health: there are over 80,000 chemicals used today, but only a few hundred have been tested for safety.

6. The US Supreme Court* is an agency of the US government, which has usurped untold power. Currently, there is a case in the Supreme Court, to uphold a ban on GMO alfalfa, as GMOs often contaminate nearby farms via cross pollination; a decision is expected this month. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto from 1976 to 1979, but he has failed to disqualify himself due to a direct conflict of interest.

A ban was placed on the GMO alfalfa due to danger of cross contamination (not safety of the food, but whether the plant is safe to grow- the USDA failed to carry out a proper Environmental Impact Study); the prior rulings have been against Monsanto, and this is their 3rd appeal.

Justice Scalia has made remarks that contamination isn’t “the end of the world”. However, it does affect farmers regarding international trade because there are many GMO bans in Europe, and they don’t want GMO crops from the US. A judgement against contamination and in favor of safety would put the USDA’s lack of ethics in preventing contamination in the news and could negate prior lower court decisions that failed to protect non- GMO farmers from contamination. And a ruling in favor of food safety could put the USDA in the news again, connecting the dots of collusion because of their refusal to ban GMOs, in order to protect their own patent on the Terminator Gene. So, given the evidence of governmental complicity in GMO monopolies, incompetence and ignorance, don’t expect the miracle of common sense to prevail in this case.

Incidentally, Elena Kagan, Obama’s candidate for the Supreme Court, sided with Monsanto in the alfalfa case, during the petition period, although it was outside of he jurisdiction as solicitor general.

7. State governments* have also contributed to the monopoly by blocking local bans on GMOs. Mendocino and Marin Counties, in Northern California, banned GMOs in 2004. California’s Central Valley, the nation’s largest produce provider, did not follow the GMO ban. Lobbying from GMO seed producers was intense, as the monopoly became threatened.

The response was that a number of States enacted pre-emptive laws preventing local governments from declaring bans on GMOs within their jurisdictions.

8. Monsanto has a long history of lying, lobbying, bribing and pressuring government scientists and government officers in order to keep their monopoly in place. Monsanto has used very dirty business practices to corner the market on seeds. Within Monsanto contracts there are provisions that mandate the destruction of all Monsanto seeds when a seed company changes ownership: the result is that this makes it very easy for Monsanto buy seed companies cheaply in the bidding process. Another way that Monsanto has eliminated competition is through withholding non GMO seeds from the market. They have also undercut their prices, making their cheaper product appear to be a good deal to farmers. News stories about the detrimental effects of GMOs have also been suppressed, as in the case of some news investigators who got fired from a Fox news investigation over rBHG.

9. US DOJ (Department of Justice)* is currently conducting an investigation regarding anti-trust violations (like the concentration of the seed supply being in the possession of 2 companies), but the investigation seems skewed in the favor of Monsanto as farmers are under-represented and the US interest in the GMO monopoly is deeply rooted. In other words this will be a lightweight investigation.

Maybe the 7 States that are investigating Monsanto’s monopoly on seeds will be more authentic, but I doubt it as DuPont’s complaint against Monsanto accuses them of offering rebates to seed distributors for excluding rival seeds; DuPont offers GMO seeds and is acting in its own interest- this investigation will likely avoid looking into how Monsanto edged out healthy non GMO seeds.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that the our government is deeply complicit in depopulation through food control, especially the USDA’s patent on the Terminator Gene. Frighteningly, amateur garage laboratory scientists and other hobbyists are pursuing new GMO creations on their own, which could have catastrophic results. While this option could break Monsanto’s monopoly, it is certainly not the preferred way to go.

Report of the Committee to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population.

I. THE SCOPE OF THE COMMITTEE'S WORK, by HARRY H. LAUGHLIN, Secretary of the Committee,Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, February, 1914.

Since the above report so reeks of social Darwinism, I thought I'd post an extensive excerpt from Book X (Chapters 1 & 2) of Henry George's Progress and Poverty, wherein George provides one of the most powerful refutations of social Darwinism ever written:

This is a question which, were it not for what has gone before, I should hesitate to review in the brief space I can now devote to it, as it involves, directly or indirectly, some of the very highest problems with which the human mind can engage. But it is a question which naturally comes up. Are or are not the conclusions to which we have come consistent with the great law under which human development goes on?

What is that law? We must find the answer to our question; for the current philosophy, though it clearly recognizes the existence of such a law, gives no more satisfactory account of, it than the current political economy does of the persistence of want amid advancing wealth.

Let us, as far as possible, keep to the firm ground of facts. Whether man was or was not gradually developed from an animal, it is not necessary to inquire. However intimate may be the connection between questions which relate to man as we know him and questions which relate to his genesis, it is only from the former upon the latter that light can be thrown. Inference cannot proceed from the unknown to the known. It is only from facts of which we are cognizant that we can infer what has preceded cognizance.

However man may have originated, all we know of him is as man—just as he is now to be found. There is no record or trace of him in any lower condition than that in which savages are still to be met. By whatever bridge he may have crossed the wide chasm which now separates him from the brutes, there remain of it no vestiges. Between the lowest savages of whom we know and the highest animals, there is an irreconcilable difference—a difference not merely of degree, but of kind. Many of the characteristics, actions, and emotions of man are exhibited by the lower animals; but man, no matter how low in the scale of humanity, has never yet been found destitute of one thing of which no animal shows the slightest trace, a clearly recognizable but almost undefinable something, which gives him the power of improvement—which makes him the progressive animal.

The beaver builds a dam, and the bird a nest, and the bee a cell; but while beavers' dams, and birds' nests, and bees' cells are always constructed on the same model, the house of the man passes from the rude hut of leaves and branches to the magnificent mansion replete with modern conveniences. The dog can to a certain extent connect cause and effect, and may be taught some tricks; but his capacity in these respects has not been a whit increased during all the ages he has been the associate of improving man, and the dog of civilization is not a whit more accomplished or Intelligent than the dog of the wandering savage. We know of no animal that uses clothes, that cooks its food, that makes itself tools or weapons, that breeds other animals that it wishes to eat, or that has an articulate language. But men who do not do such things have never yet been found, or heard of, except in fable. That is to say, man, wherever we know him, exhibits this power—of supplementing what nature has done for him by what he does for himself; and, in fact, so inferior is the physical endowment of man, that there is no part of the world, save perhaps some of the small islands of the Pacific, where without this faculty he could maintain an existence.

Man everywhere and at all times exhibits this faculty—everywhere and at all times of which we have knowledge he has made some use of it. But the degree in which this has been done greatly varies. Between the rude canoe and the steamship; between the boomerang and the repeating rifle; between the roughly carved wooden idol and the breathing marble of Grecian art; between savage knowledge and modern science; between the wild Indian and the white settler; between the Hottentot woman and the belle of polished society, there is an enormous difference.

The varying degrees in which this faculty is used cannot be ascribed to differences in original capacity—the most highly improved peoples of the present day were savages within historic times, and we meet with the widest differences between peoples of the same stock. Nor can they be wholly ascribed to differences in physical environment—the cradles of learning and the arts are now in many cases tenanted by barbarians, and within a few years great cities rise on the hunting grounds of wild tribes. All these differences are evidently connected with social development. Beyond perhaps the veriest rudiments, it becomes possible for man to improve only as he lives with his fellows. All these improvements, therefore, in man's powers and conditions we summarize in the term civilization. Men improve as they become civilized, or learn to co-operate in society.

What is the law of this improvement? By what common principle can we explain the different stages of civilization at which different communities have arrived? In what consists essentially the progress of civilization, so that we may say of varying social adjustments, this favors it, and that does not; or explain why an institution or condition which may at one time advance it may at another time retard it?

The prevailing belief now is, that the progress of civilization is a development or evolution, in the course of which man's powers are increased and his qualities improved by the operation of causes similar to those which are relied upon as explaining the genesis of species—viz., the survival of the fittest and the hereditary transmission of acquired qualities.

That civilization is an evolution—that it is, in the language of Herbert Spencer, a progress from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity—there is no doubt; but to say this is not to explain or identify the causes which forward or retard it. How far the sweeping generalizations of Spencer, which seek to account for all phenomena under terms of matter and force, may, properly understood, include all these causes, I am unable to say; but, as scientifically expounded, the development philosophy has either not yet definitely met this question, or has given birth, or rather coherency, to an opinion which does not accord with the facts.

The vulgar explanation of progress is, I think, very much like the view naturally taken by the money maker of the causes of the unequal distribution of wealth. His theory, if he has one, usually is, that there is plenty of money to be made by those who have will and ability, and that it is ignorance, or idleness, or extravagance, that makes the difference between the rich and the poor. And so the common explanation of differences of civilization is of differences in capacity. The civilized races are the superior races, and advance in civilization is according to this superiority—just as English victories were, in common English opinion, due to the natural superiority of Englishmen to frog-eating Frenchmen; and popular government, active invention, and greater average comfort are, or were until lately, in common American opinion, due to the greater "smartness of the Yankee Nation."

Now, just as the politico-economic doctrines which in the beginning of this inquiry we met and disproved, harmonize with the common opinion of men who see capitalists paying wages and competition reducing wages; just as the Malthusian theory harmonized with existing prejudices both of the rich and the poor; so does the explanation of progress as a gradual race improvement harmonize with the vulgar opinion which accounts by race differences for differences in civilization. It has given coherence and a scientific formula to opinions which already prevailed. Its wonderful spread since the time Darwin first startled the world with his "Origin of Species" has not been so much a conquest as an assimilation.

The view which now dominates the world of thought is this: That the struggle for existence, just in proportion as it becomes intense, impels men to new efforts and inventions. That this improvement and capacity for improvement is fixed by hereditary transmission, and extended by the tendency of the best adapted individual, or most improved individual, to survive and propagate among individuals, and of the best adapted, or most improved tribe, nation, or race to survive in the struggle between social aggregates. On this theory the differences between man and the animals, and differences in the relative progress of men, are now explained as confidently, and all but as generally, as a little while ago they were explained upon the theory of special creation and divine interposition.

The practical outcome of this theory is in a sort of hopeful fatalism, of which current literature is full. In this view, progress is the result of forces which work slowly, steadily, and remorselessly, for the elevation of man. War, slavery, tyranny, superstition, famine, and pestilence, the want and misery which fester in modern civilization, are the impelling causes which drive man on, by eliminating poorer types and extending the higher; and hereditary transmission is the power by which advances are fixed, and past advances made the footing for new advances. The individual is the result of changes thus impressed upon and perpetuated through a long series of past individuals, and the social organization takes its form from the individuals of which it is composed. Thus, while this theory is, as Herbert Spencer says—"radical to a degree beyond anything which current radicalism conceives," inasmuch as it looks for changes in the very nature of man; it is at the same time "conservative to a degree beyond anything conceived by current conservatism," inasmuch as it holds that no change can avail save these slow changes in men's natures. Philosophers may teach that this does not lessen the duty of endeavoring to reform abuses, just as the theologians who taught predestinarianism insisted on the duty of all to struggle for salvation; but, as generally apprehended, the result is fatalism—"do what we may, the mills of the gods grind on regardless either of our aid or our hindrance." I allude to this only to illustrate what I take to be the opinion now rapidly spreading and permeating common thought; not that in the search for truth any regard for its effects should be permitted to bias the mind. But this I take to be the current view of civilization: That it is the result of forces, operating in the way indicated, which slowly change the character, and improve and elevate the powers of man; that the difference between civilized man and savage is of a long race education, which has become permanently fixed in mental organization; and that this improvement tends to go on increasingly, to a higher and higher civilization. We have reached such a point that progress seems to be natural with us, and we look forward confidently to the greater achievements of the coming race—some even holding that the progress of science will finally give men immortality and enable them to make bodily the tour not only of the planets, but of the fixed stars, and at length to manufacture suns and systems for themselves.

But without soaring to the stars, the moment that this theory of progression, which seems so natural to us amid an advancing civilization, looks around the world, it comes against an enormous fact—the fixed, petrified civilizations. The majority of the human race today have no idea of progress; the majority of the human race today look (as until a few generations ago our own ancestors looked) upon the past as the time of human perfection. The difference between the savage and the civilized man may be explained on the theory that the former is as yet so imperfectly developed that his progress is hardly apparent; but how, upon the theory that human progress is the result of general and continuous causes, shall we account for the civilizations that had progressed so far and then stopped? It cannot be said of the Hindoo and of the Chinaman, as it may be said of the savage, that our superiority is the result of a longer education; that we are, as it were, the grown men of nature, while they are the children. The Hindoos and the Chinese were civilized when we were savages. They had great cities, highly organized and powerful governments, literatures, philosophies, polished manners, considerable division of labor, large commerce, and elaborate arts, when our ancestors were wandering barbarians, living in huts and skin tents....While we have progressed from this savage state to Nineteenth Century civilization, they have stood still. If progress be the result of fixed laws, inevitable and eternal, which impel men forward, how shall we account for this?

One of the best popular expounders of the development philosophy, Walter Bagehot ("Physics and Politics"), admits the force of this objection, and endeavors in this way to explain it: That the first thing necessary to civilize man is to tame him; to induce him to live in association with his fellows in subordination to law; and hence a body or "cake" of laws and customs grows up, being intensified and extended by natural selection, the tribe or nation thus bound together having an advantage over those who are not. That this cake of custom and law finally becomes too thick and hard to permit further progress, which can go on only as circumstances occur which introduce discussion, and thus permit the freedom and mobility necessary to improvement.

This explanation, which Mr. Bagehot offers, as he says, with some misgivings, is I think at the expense of the general theory. But it is not worth while speaking of that, for it, manifestly, does not explain the facts.

The hardening tendency of which Mr. Bagehot speaks would show itself at a very early period of development, and his illustrations of it are nearly all drawn from savage or semi-savage life. Whereas, these arrested civilizations had gone a long distance before they stopped. There must have been a time when they were very far advanced as compared with the savage state, and were yet plastic, free, and advancing. These arrested civilizations stopped at a point which was hardly in anything inferior and in many respects superior to European civilization of, say, the sixteenth or at any rate the fifteenth century. Up to that point then there must have been discussion, the hailing of what was new, and mental activity of all sorts. They had architects who carried the art of building, necessarily by a series of innovations or improvements, up to a very high point; shipbuilders who in the same way, by innovation after innovation, finally produced as good a vessel as the warships of Henry VIII; inventors who stopped only on the verge of our most important improvements, and from some of whom we can yet learn; engineers who constructed great irrigation works and navigable canals; rival schools of philosophy and conflicting ideas of religion. One great religion, in many respects resembling Christianity, rose in India, displaced the old religion, passed into China, sweeping over that country, and was displaced again in its old seats, just as Christianity was displaced in its first seats. There was life, and active life, and the innovation that begets improvement, long after men had learned to live together. And, moreover, both India and China have received the infusion of new life in conquering races, with different customs and modes of thought.

The most fixed and petrified of all civilizations of which we know anything was that of Egypt, where even art finally assumed a conventional and inflexible form. But we know that behind this must have been a time of life and vigor—a freshly developing and expanding civilization, such as ours is now—or the arts and sciences could never have been carried to such a pitch. And recent excavations have brought to light from beneath what we before knew of Egypt an earlier Egypt still—in statues and carvings which, instead of a hard and formal type, beam with life and expression, which show art struggling, ardent, natural, and free, the sure indication of an active and expanding life. So it must have been once with all now unprogressive civilizations.

But it is not merely these arrested civilizations that the current theory of development falls to account for. It is not merely that men have gone so far on the path of progress and then stopped; it is that men have gone far on the path of progress and then gone back. It is not merely an isolated case that thus confronts the theory—it is the universal rule. Every civilization that the world has yet seen has had its period of vigorous growth, of arrest and stagnation; its decline and fall. Of all the civilizations that have arisen and flourished, there remain today but those that have been arrested, and our own, which is not yet as old as were the pyramids when Abraham looked upon them—while behind the pyramids were twenty centuries of recorded history.

That our own civilization has a broader base, is of a more advanced type, moves quicker and soars higher than any preceding civilization is undoubtedly true; but in these respects it is hardly more in advance of the Greco-Roman civilization than that was in advance of Asiatic civilization; and if it were, that would prove nothing as to its permanence and future advance, unless it be shown that it is superior in those things which caused the ultimate failure of its predecessors. The current theory does not assume this.

In truth, nothing could be further from explaining the facts of universal history than this theory that civilization is the result of a course of natural selection which operates to improve and elevate the powers of man. That civilization has arisen at different times in different places and has progressed at different rates, is not inconsistent with this theory; for that might result from the unequal balancing of impelling and resisting forces; but that progress everywhere commencing, for even among the lowest tribes it is held that there has been some progress, has nowhere been continuous, but has everywhere been brought to a stand or retrogression, is absolutely inconsistent. For if progress operated to fix an improvement in man's nature and thus to produce further progress, though there might be occasional interruption, yet the general rule would be that progress would be continuous—that advance would lead to advance, and civilization develop into higher civilization.

Not merely the general rule, but the universal rule, is the reverse of this. The earth is the tomb of the dead empires, no less than of dead men. Instead of progress fitting men for greater progress, every civilization that was in its own time as vigorous and advancing as ours is now, has of itself come to a stop. Over and over again, art has declined, learning sunk, power waned, population become sparse, until the people who had built great temples and mighty cities, turned rivers and pierced mountains, cultivated the earth like a garden and introduced the utmost refinement into the minute affairs of life, remained but in a remnant of squalid barbarians, who had lost even the memory of what their ancestors had done, and regarded the surviving fragments of their grandeur as the work of genii, or of the mighty race before the flood. So true is this, that when we think of the past, it seems like the inexorable law, from which we can no more hope to be exempt than the young man who "feels his life in every limb" can hope to be exempt from the dissolution which is the common fate of all. "Even this, O Rome, must one day be thy fate!" wept Scipio over the ruins of Carthage, and Macaulay's picture of the New Zealander musing upon the broken arch of London Bridge appeals to the imagination of even those who see cities rising in the wilderness and help to lay the foundations of new empire. And so, when we erect a public building we make a hollow in the largest corner stone and carefully seal within it some mementos of our day, looking forward to the time when our works shall be ruins and ourselves forgot.

Nor whether this alternate rise and fall of civilization, this retrogression that always follows progression, be, or be not, the rhythmic movement of an ascending line (and I think, though I will not open the question, that it would be much more difficult to prove the affirmative than is generally supposed) makes no difference; for the current theory is in either case disproved. Civilizations have died and made no sign, and hard-won progress has been lost to the race forever; but, even if it be admitted that each wave of progress has made possible a higher wave and each civilization passed the torch to a greater civilization, the theory that civilization advances by changes wrought in the nature of man fails to explain the facts; for in every case it is not the race that has been educated and hereditarily modified by the old civilization that begins the new, but a fresh race coming from a lower level. It is the barbarians of the one epoch who have been the civilized men of the next; to be in their turn succeeded by fresh barbarians. For it has been heretofore always the case that men under the influences of civilization, though at first improving, afterward degenerate. The civilized man of today is vastly the superior of the uncivilized; but so in the time of its vigor was the civilized man of every dead civilization. But there are such things as the vices, the corruptions, the enervations of civilization, which past a certain point have always heretofore shown themselves. Every civilization that has been overwhelmed by barbarians has really perished from internal decay.

This universal fact, the moment that it is recognized, disposes of the theory that progress is by hereditary transmission. Looking over the history of the world, the line of greatest advance does not coincide for any length of time with any line of heredity. On any particular line of heredity, retrogression seems always to follow advance.

Shall we therefore say that there is a national or race life, as there is an individual life—that every social aggregate has, as it were, a certain amount of energy, the expenditure of which necessitates decay? This is an old and widespread idea, that is yet largely held, and that may be constantly seen cropping out incongruously in the writings of the expounders of the development philosophy. Indeed, I do not see why it may not be stated in terms of matter and of motion so as to bring it clearly within the generalizations of evolution. For considering its individuals as atoms, the growth of society is "an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation." And thus an analogy may be drawn between the life of a society and the life of a solar system upon the nebular hypothesis. As the heat and light of the sun are produced by the aggregation of atoms evolving motion, which finally ceases when the atoms at length come to a state of equilibrium or rest, and a state of immobility succeeds, which can be broken in again only by the impact of external forces, which reverse the process of evolution, integrating motion and dissipating matter in the form of gas, again to evolve motion by its condensation; so, it may be said, does the aggregation of individuals in a community evolve a force which produces the light and warmth of civilization, but when this process ceases and the individual components are brought into a state of equilibrium, assuming their fixed places, petrifaction ensues, and the breaking up and diffusion caused by an incursion of barbarians is necessary to the recommencement of the process and a new growth of civilization.

But analogies are the most dangerous modes of thought. They may connect resemblances and yet disguise or cover up the truth. And all such analogies are superficial. While its members are constantly reproduced in all the fresh vigor of childhood, a community cannot grow old, as does a man, by the decay of its powers. While its aggregate force must be the sum of the forces of its individual components, a community cannot lose vital power unless the vital powers of its components are lessened.

Yet in both the common analogy which likens the life power of a nation to that of an individual, and in the one I have supposed, lurks the recognition of an obvious truth—the truth that the obstacles which finally bring progress to a halt are raised by the course of progress; that what has destroyed all previous civilizations has been the conditions produced by the growth of civilization itself.

This is a truth which in the current philosophy is ignored; but it is a truth most pregnant. Any valid theory of human progress must account for it.

Chapter 2: Differences in Civilization—To What Due

In attempting to discover the law of human progress, the first step must be to determine the essential nature of these differences which we describe as differences in civilization.

That the current philosophy, which attributes social progress to changes wrought in the nature of man, does not accord with historical facts, we have already seen. And we may also see, if we consider them, that the differences between communities in different stages of civilization cannot be ascribed to innate differences in the individuals who compose these communities. That there are natural differences is true, and that there is such a thing as hereditary transmission of peculiarities is undoubtedly true; but the great differences between men in different states of society cannot be explained in this way. The influence of heredity, which it is now the fashion to rate so highly, is as nothing compared with the influences which mold the man after he comes into the world. What is more ingrained in habit than language, which becomes not merely an automatic trick of the muscles, but the medium of thought? What persists longer, or will quicker show nationality? Yet we are not born with a predisposition to any language. Our mother tongue is our mother tongue only because we learned it in infancy. Although his ancestors have thought and spoken in one language for countless generations, a child who hears from the first nothing else, will learn with equal facility any other tongue. And so of other national or local or class peculiarities. They seem to be matters of education and habit, not of transmission. Cases of white children captured by Indians in infancy and brought up in the wigwam show this. They become thorough Indians. And so, I believe, with children brought up by Gypsies.

That this is not so true of the children of Indians or other distinctly marked races brought up by whites is, I think, due to the fact that they are never treated precisely as white children. A gentleman who had taught a colored school once told me that he thought the colored children, up to the age of ten or twelve, were really brighter and learned more readily than white children, but that after that age they seemed to get dull and careless. He thought this proof of innate race inferiority, and so did I at the time. But I afterward heard a highly intelligent negro gentleman (Bishop Hillery) incidentally make a remark which to my mind seems a sufficient explanation. He said: "Our children, when they are young, are fully as bright as white children, and learn as readily. But as soon as they get old enough to appreciate their status—to realize that they are looked upon as belonging to an inferior race, and can never hope to be anything more than cooks, waiters, or something of that sort, they lose their ambition and cease to keep up." And to this he might have added, that being the children of poor, uncultivated and unambitious parents, home influences told against them. For, I believe it is a matter of common observation that in the primary part of education the children of ignorant parents are quite as receptive as the children of intelligent parents, but by and by the latter, as a general rule, pull ahead and make the most intelligent men and women. The reason is plain. As to the first simple things which they learn only at school, they are on a par, but as their studies become more complex, the child who at home is accustomed to good English, hears intelligent conversation, has access to books, can get questions answered, etc., has an advantage which tells.

The same thing may be seen later in life. Take a man who has raised himself from the ranks of common labor, and just as he is brought into contact with men of culture and men of affairs, will he become more intelligent and polished. Take two brothers, the sons of poor parents, brought up in the same home and in the same way. One is put to a rude trade, and never gets beyond the necessity of making a living by hard daily labor; the other, commencing as an errand boy, gets a start in another direction, and becomes finally a successful lawyer, merchant, or politician. At forty or fifty the contrast between them will be striking, and the unreflecting will credit it to the greater natural ability which has enabled the one to push himself ahead. But just as striking a difference in manners and intelligence will be manifested between two sisters, one of whom, married to a man who has remained poor, has her life fretted with petty cares and devoid of opportunities, and the other of whom has married a man whose subsequent position brings her into cultured society and opens to her opportunities which refine taste and expand intelligence. And so deteriorations may be seen. That "evil communications corrupt good manners" is but an expression of the general law that human character is profoundly modified by its conditions and surroundings.

I remember once seeing, in a Brazilian seaport, a negro man dressed in what was an evident attempt at the height of fashion, but without shoes and stockings. One of the sailors with whom I was in company, and who had made some runs in the slave trade, had a theory that a negro was not a man, but a sort of monkey, and pointed to this as evidence in proof, contending that it was not natural for a negro to wear shoes, and that in his wild state he would wear no clothes at all. I afterward learned that it was not considered "the thing" there for slaves to wear shoes, just as in England it is not considered the thing for a faultlessly attired butler to wear jewelry, though for that matter I have since seen white men at liberty to dress as they pleased get themselves up as incongruously as the Brazilian slave. But a great many of the facts adduced as showing hereditary transmission have really no more bearing than this of our forecastle Darwinian.

That, for instance, a large number of criminals and recipients of public relief in New York have been shown to have descended from a pauper three or four generations back is extensively cited as showing hereditary transmission. But it shows nothing of the kind, inasmuch as an adequate explanation of the facts is nearer. Paupers will raise paupers, even if the children be not their own, just as familiar contact with criminals will make criminals of the children of virtuous parents. To learn to rely on charity is necessarily to lose the self respect and independence necessary for self-reliance when the struggle is hard. So true is this that, as is well known, charity has the effect of increasing the demand for charity, and it is an open question whether public relief and private alms do not in this way do far more harm than good. And so of the disposition of children to show the same feelings, tastes, prejudices, or talents as their parents. They imbibe these dispositions just as they imbibe from their habitual associates. And the exceptions prove the rule, as dislikes or revulsions may be excited.

And there is, I think, a subtler influence which often accounts for what are looked upon as atavisms of character—the same influence that makes the boy who reads dime novels want to be a pirate. I once knew a gentleman in whose veins ran the blood of Indian chiefs. He used to tell me traditions learned from his grandfather, which illustrated what is difficult for a white man to comprehend—the Indian habit of thought, the intense but patient blood thirst of the trail, and the fortitude of the stake. From the way in which he dwelt on these, I have no doubt that under certain circumstances, highly educated, civilized man that he was, he would have shown traits which would have been looked on as due to his Indian blood; but which in reality would have been sufficiently explained by the broodings of his imagination upon the deeds of his ancestors.

In any large community we may see, as between different classes and groups, differences of the same kind as those which exist between communities which we speak of as differing in civilization—differences of knowledge, belief, customs, tastes, and speech, which in their extremes show among people of the same race, living in the same country, differences almost as great as those between civilized and savage communities. As all stages of social development, from the stone age up, are yet to be found in contemporaneously existing communities, so in the same country and in the same city are to be found, side by side, groups which show similar diversities. In such countries as England and Germany, children of the same race, born and reared in the same place, will grow up, speaking the language differently, holding different beliefs, following different customs, and showing different tastes; and even in such a country as the United States differences of the same kind, though not of the same degree, may be seen between different circles or groups.

But these differences are certainly not innate. No baby is born a Methodist or Catholic, to drop its h's or to sound them. All these differences which distinguish different groups or circles are derived from association in these circles.

The Janissaries were made up of youths torn from Christian parents at an early age, but they were none the less fanatical Moslems and none the less exhibited all the Turkish traits; the Jesuits and other orders show distinct character, but it is certainly not perpetuated by hereditary transmissions; and even such associations as schools or regiments, where the components remain but a short time and are constantly changing, exhibit general characteristics, which are the result of mental impressions perpetuated by association.

Now, it is this body of traditions, beliefs, customs, laws, habits and associations, which arise in every community and which surround every individual—this "super-organic environment," as Herbert Spencer calls it, that, as I take it, is the great element in determining national character. It is this, rather than hereditary transmission, which makes the Englishman differ from the Frenchman, the German from the Italian, the American from the Chinaman, and the civilized man from the savage man. It is in this way that national traits are preserved, extended, or altered.

Within certain limits, or, if you choose, without limits in itself, hereditary transmission may develop or alter qualities, but this is much more true of the physical than of the mental part of a man, and much more true of animals than it is even of the physical part of man. Deductions from the breeding of pigeons or cattle will not apply to man, and the reason is clear. The life of man, even in his rudest state, is infinitely more complex. He is constantly acted on by an infinitely greater number of influences, amid which the relative influence of heredity becomes less and less. A race of men with no greater mental activity than the animals—men who only ate, drank, slept, and propagated—might, I doubt not, by careful treatment and selection in breeding, be made, in course of time, to exhibit as great diversities in bodily shape and character as similar means have produced in the domestic animals. But there are no such men; and in men as they are, mental influences, acting through the mind upon the body, would constantly interrupt the process. You cannot fatten a man whose mind is on the strain, by cooping him up and feeding him as you would fatten a pig. In all probability men have been upon the earth longer than many species of animals. They have been separated from each other under differences of climate that produce the most marked differences in animals, and yet the physical differences between the different races of men are hardly greater than the difference between white horses and black horses—they are certainly nothing like as great as between dogs of the same subspecies, as, for instance, the different varieties of the terrier or spaniel. And even these physical differences between races of men, it is held by those who account for them by natural selection and hereditary transmission, were brought out when man was much nearer the animal—that is to say, when he had less mind.

And if this be true of the physical constitution of man, in how much higher degree is it true of his mental constitution? All our physical parts we bring with us into the world; but the mind develops afterward.

There is a stage in the growth of every organism in which it cannot be told, except by the environment, whether the animal that is to be will be fish or reptile, monkey or man. And so with the new-born infant; whether the mind that is yet to awake to consciousness and power is to be English or German, American or Chinese—the mind of a civilized man or the mind of a savage—depends entirely on the social environment in which it is placed.

Take a number of infants born of the most highly civilized parents and transport them to an uninhabited country. Suppose them in some miraculous way to be sustained until they come of age to take care of themselves, and what would you have? More helpless savages than any we know of. They would have fire to discover; the rudest tools and weapons to invent; language to construct. They would, in short, have to stumble their way to the simplest knowledge which the lowest races now possess, just as a child learns to walk. That they would in time do all these things I have not the slightest doubt, for all these possibilities are latent in the human mind just as the power of walking is latent in the human frame, but I do not believe they would do them any better or worse, any slower or quicker, than the children of barbarian parents placed in the same conditions. Given the very highest mental powers that exceptional individuals have ever displayed, and what could mankind be if one generation were separated from the next by an interval of time, as are the seventeen-year locusts? One such interval would reduce mankind, not to savagery, but to a condition compared with which savagery, as we know it, would seem civilization.

And, reversely, suppose a number of savage infants could, unknown to the mothers, for even this would be necessary to make the experiment a fair one, be substituted for as many children of civilization, can we suppose that growing up they would show any difference? I think no one who has mixed much with different peoples and classes will think so. The great lesson that is thus learned is that "human nature is human nature all the world over." And this lesson, too, may be learned in the library. I speak not so much of the accounts of travelers, for the accounts given of savages by the civilized men who write books are very often just such accounts as savages would give of us did they make flying visits and then write books; but of those mementos of the life and thoughts of other times and other peoples, which, translated into our language of today, are like glimpses of our own lives and gleams of our own thought. The feeling they inspire is that of the essential similarity of men. "This," says Emanuel Deutsch—"this is the end of all investigation into history or art. They were even as we are."

There is a people to be found in all parts of the world who well illustrate what peculiarities are due to hereditary transmission and what to transmission by association. The Jews have maintained the purity of their blood more scrupulously and for a far longer time than any of the European races, yet I am inclined to think that the only characteristic that can be attributed to this is that of physiognomy, and this is in reality far less marked than is conventionally supposed, as any one who will take the trouble may see on observation. Although they have constantly married among themselves, the Jews have everywhere been modified by their surroundings—the English, Russian, Polish, German, and Oriental Jews differing from each other in many respects as much as do the other people of those countries. Yet they have much in common, and have everywhere preserved their individuality. The reason is clear. It is the Hebrew religion—and certainly religion is not transmitted by generation, but by association—which has everywhere preserved the distinctiveness of the Hebrew race. This religion, which children derive, not as they derive their physical characteristics, but by precept and association, is not merely exclusive in its teachings, but has, by engendering suspicion and dislike, produced a powerful outside pressure which, even more than its precepts, has everywhere constituted of the Jews a community within a community. Thus has been built up and maintained a certain peculiar environment which gives a distinctive character. Jewish intermarriage has been the effect, not the cause of this. What persecution which stopped short of taking Jewish children from their parents and bringing them up outside of this peculiar environment could not accomplish, will be accomplished by the lessening intensity of religious belief, as is already evident in the United States, where the distinction between Jew and Gentile is fast disappearing.

And it seems to me that the influence of this social net or environment will explain what is so often taken as proof of race differences—the difficulty which less civilized races show in receiving higher civilization, and the manner in which some of them melt away before it. Just as one social environment persists, so does it render it difficult or impossible for those subject to it to accept another.

The Chinese character is fixed if that of any people is. Yet the Chinese in California acquire American modes of working, trading, the use of machinery, etc., with such facility as to prove that they have no lack of flexibility, or natural capacity. That they do not change in other respects is due to the Chinese environment that still persists and still surrounds them. Coming from China, they look forward to return to China, and live while here in a little China of their own, just as the Englishmen in India maintain a little England. It is not merely that we naturally seek association with those who share our peculiarities, and that thus language, religion and custom tend to persist where individuals are not absolutely isolated; but that these differences provoke an external pressure, which compels such association.

These obvious principles fully account for all the phenomena which are seen in the meeting of one stage or body of culture with another, without resort to the theory of ingrained differences. For instance, as comparative philology has shown, the Hindoo is of the same race as his English conqueror, and individual instances have abundantly shown that if he could be placed completely and exclusively in the English environment (which, as before stated, could be thoroughly done only by placing infants in English families in such a way that neither they, as they grow up, nor those around them, would be conscious of any distinction) one generation would be all required to thoroughly implant European civilization. But the progress of English ideas and habits in India must be necessarily very slow, because they meet there the web of ideas and habits constantly perpetuated through an immense population, and interlaced with every act of life.

Mr. Bagehot ("Physics and Politics") endeavors to explain the reason why barbarians waste away before our civilization, while they did not before that of the ancients, by assuming that the progress of civilization has given us tougher physical constitutions. After alluding to the fact that there is no lament in any classical writer for the barbarians, but that everywhere the barbarian endured the contact with the Roman and the Roman allied himself to the barbarian, he says (pp. 47-8):

"Savages in the first year of the Christian era were pretty much what they were in the eighteen hundredth; and if they stood the contact of ancient civilized men and cannot stand ours, it follows that our race is presumably tougher than the ancient; for we have to bear, and do bear, the seeds of greater diseases than the ancients carried with them. We may use, perhaps, the unvarying savage as a meter to gauge the vigor of the constitution to whose contact he is exposed."

Mr. Bagehot does not attempt to explain how it is that eighteen hundred years ago civilization did not give the like relative advantage over barbarism that it does now. But there is no use of talking about that, or of the lack of proof that the human constitution has been a whit improved. To any one who has seen how the contact of our civilization affects the inferior races [read: lesser-developed cultures], a much readier though less flattering explanation will occur.

It is not because our constitutions are naturally tougher than those of the savage, that diseases which are comparatively innocuous to us are certain death to him. It is that we know and have the means of treating those diseases, while he is destitute both of knowledge and means. The same diseases with which the scum of civilization that floats in its advance inoculates the savage would prove as destructive to civilized men, if they knew no better than to let them run, as he in his ignorance has to let them run; and as a matter of fact they were as destructive, until we found out how to treat them. And not merely this, but the effect of the impingement of civilization upon barbarism is to weaken the power of the savage without bringing him into the conditions that give power to the civilized man. While his habits and customs still tend to persist, and do persist as far as they can, the conditions to which they were adapted are forcibly changed. He is a hunter in a land stripped of game; a warrior deprived of his arms and called on to plead in legal technicalities. He is not merely placed between cultures, but, as Mr. Bagehot says of the European half-breeds in India, he is placed between moralities, and learns the vices of civilization without its virtues. He loses his accustomed means of subsistence, he loses self-respect, he loses morality; he deteriorates and dies away. The miserable creatures who may be seen hanging around frontier towns or railroad stations, ready to beg, or steal, or solicit a viler commerce, are not fair representatives of the Indian before the white man had encroached upon his hunting grounds. They have lost the strength and virtues of their former state, without gaining those of a higher. In fact, civilization, as it pushes the red man, shows no virtues. To the Anglo-Saxon of the frontier, as a rule, the aborigine has no rights which the white man is bound to respect. He is impoverished, misunderstood, cheated, and abused. He dies out, as, under similar conditions, we should die out. He disappears before civilization as the Britons disappeared before Saxon barbarism.

The true reason why there is no lament in any classic writer for the barbarian, but that the Roman civilization assimilated instead of destroying, is, I take it, to be found not only in the fact that the ancient civilization was much nearer akin to the barbarians which it met, but in the more important fact that it was not extended as ours has been. It was carried forward, not by an advancing line of colonists, but by conquest which merely reduced the new province to general subjection, leaving the social, and generally the political organization of the people to a great degree unimpaired, so that, without shattering or deterioration, the process of assimilation went on. In a somewhat similar way the civilization of Japan seems to be now assimilating itself to European civilization.

In America the Anglo-Saxon has exterminated, instead of civilizing, the Indian, simply because he has not brought the Indian into his environment, nor yet has the contact been in such a way as to induce or permit the Indian web of habitual thought and custom to be changed rapidly enough to meet the new conditions into which he has been brought by the proximity of new and powerful neighbors. That there is no innate impediment to the reception of our civilization by these uncivilized races has been shown over and over again in individual cases. And it has likewise been shown, so far as the experiments have been permitted to go, by the Jesuits in Paraguay, the Franciscans in California, and the Protestant missionaries on some of the Pacific islands.

The assumption of physical improvement in the race within any time of which we have knowledge is utterly without warrant, and within the time of which Mr. Bagehot speaks, it is absolutely disproved. We know from classic statues, from the burdens carried and the marches made by ancient soldiers, from the records of runners and the feats of gymnasts, that neither in proportions nor strength has the race improved within two thousand years. But the assumption of mental improvement, which is even more confidently and generally made, is still more preposterous. As poets, artists, architects, philosophers, rhetoricians, statesmen, or soldiers, can modern civilization show individuals of greater mental power than can the ancient? There is no use in recalling names—every schoolboy knows them. For our models and personifications of mental power we go back to the ancients, and if we can for a moment imagine the possibility of what is held by that oldest and most widespread of all beliefs—that belief which Lessing declared on this account the most probably true, though he accepted it on metaphysical grounds—and suppose Homer or Virgil, Demosthenes or Cicero, Alexander, Hannibal or Cæsar, Plato or Lucretius, Euclid or Aristotle, as re-entering this life again in the Nineteenth Century, can we suppose that they would show any inferiority to the men of today? Or if we take any period since the classic age, even the darkest, or any previous period of which we know anything, shall we not find men who in the conditions and degree of knowledge of their times showed mental power of as high an order as men show now? And among the less advanced races do we not today, whenever our attention is called to them, find men who in their conditions exhibit mental qualities as great as civilization can show? Did the invention of the railroad, coming when it did, prove any greater inventive power than did the invention of the wheelbarrow when wheelbarrows were not? We of modern civilization are raised far above those who have preceded us and those of the less advanced races who are our contemporaries. But it is because we stand on a pyramid, not that we are taller. What the centuries have done for us is not to increase our stature, but to build up a structure on which we may plant our feet.

Let me repeat: I do not mean to say that all men possess the same capacities, or are mentally alike, any more than I mean to say that they are physically alike. Among all the countless millions who have come and gone on this earth, there were probably never two who either physically or mentally were exact counterparts. Nor yet do I mean to say that there are not as clearly marked race differences in mind as there are clearly marked race differences in body. I do not deny the influence of heredity in transmitting peculiarities of mind in the same way, and possibly to the same degree, as bodily peculiarities are transmitted. But nevertheless, there is, it seems to me, a common standard and natural symmetry of mind, as there is of body, toward which all deviations tend to return. The conditions under which we fall may produce such distortions as the Flatheads produce by compressing the heads of their infants or the Chinese by binding their daughters' feet. But as Flathead babies continue to be born with naturally shaped heads and Chinese babies with naturally shaped feet, so does nature seem to revert to the normal mental type. A child no more inherits his father's knowledge than he inherits his father's glass eye or artificial leg; the child of the most ignorant parents may become a pioneer of science or a leader of thought.

But this is the great fact with which we are concerned: That the differences between the people of communities in different places and at different times, which we call differences of civilization, are not differences which inhere in the individuals, but differences which inhere in the society; that they are not, as Herbert Spencer holds, differences resulting from differences in the units; but that they are differences resulting from the conditions under which these units are brought in the society. In short, I take the explanation of the differences which distinguish communities to be this: That each society, small or great, necessarily weaves for itself a web of knowledge, beliefs, customs, language, tastes, institutions, and laws. Into this web, woven by each society, or rather, into these webs, for each community above the simplest is made up of minor societies, which overlap and interlace each other, the individual is received at birth and continues until his death. This is the matrix in which mind unfolds and from which it takes its stamp. This is the way in which customs, and religions, and prejudices, and tastes, and languages, grow up and are perpetuated. This is the way that skill is transmitted and knowledge is stored up, and the discoveries of one time made the common stock and stepping stone of the next. Though it is this that often offers the most serious obstacles to progress, it is this that makes progress possible. It is this that enables any schoolboy in our time to learn in a few hours more of the universe than Ptolemy knew; that places the most humdrum scientist far above the level reached by the giant mind of Aristotle. This is to the race what memory is to the individual. Our wonderful arts, our far-reaching science, our marvelous inventions—they have come through this.

Human progress goes on as the advances made by one generation are in this way secured as the common property of the next, and made the starting point for new advances.

Most people think that the United Nations is a noble enterprise and they don’t understand the history and malignant character of the UN.

Christina Aguilera, Drew Barrymore and Sean Penn are probably unaware, even though they are UN Ambassadors to the World Food Program (WFP), that the intent of the UN is to implement one world government (see videos below). The UN WFP, which spreads GMOs in poor countries, is just one tool used for advancing the goals of Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control.

The WFP is corrupt to its core, as evidenced by a leaked UN document about Somalia which exposed that most of the aid goes to UN workers, Islamic militants and contractors.

The UN grew out of the League of Nations, which withered after Woodrow Wilson ( Edward House’s puppet), failed to convince Congress that international treaties and entangling alliances were good for America. Later, Rockefeller was able to advance the globalists’ cause and even donated 18 acres of land for the UN headquarters, located in New York. The Rockefellers have conceived and funded most of the destructive UN programs.

The origin of the food monopoly began with the Rockefeller Dynasty, even before they funded biotech research and industry.(1) The major GMO seed companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, etc. are based in America and the patent laws that protect their monopoly are American.(2) Therefore, it should come as little surprise that the forces behind toxic GMOs promote GMOs internationally by way of the United Nations, using American tax dollars.

USAID

USAID (US Agency for International Development) is a an independent federal agency that is concerned with economic growth and advancing US foreign policy and interests, under the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The agency is funded by taxpayer money. These interests are often private companies, like Monsanto, that champion so-called humanitarian aid in the name of the American people, using our tax dollars. USAID’s humanitarian efforts include imposing GMO seeds on poor nations by way of complex methods that circumvent the laws of poor countries.(3) Poor countries rarely stand up to the US government directly and are under constant pressure, plus they risk losing financial benefits from the US. So, these poor and transitional countries sell out their own farmers and the population suffers because GMO crops are unhealthy, GMO crops yields are lower and they foster monopolies, resulting in ongoing dependence.

USAID funds many NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) that carry out USAID’s objectives- here is a list nearly 200 pages long- of the NGOs that are supported by US taxpayers.(4) It is interesting to note how many of these NGOs are concerned with ‘reproductive rights’, which is a fancy term for eugenics (selective breeding programs, often brutally enforced via forced sterilization and genocide). Further, USAID entered into a Public- Private Partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation, with the help of Bill Clinton, in order to use investments to “address” social and environmental problems, under the shelter of a tax free organization.(5) This means that the tax free organization will be able direct ‘impact’ investing which is designed to have an effect on social and environmental problems. In other words, be on the lookout for large investors using their overwhelming influence upon infrastructures, utilities, sewage systems, water sources, etc, which will likely lead to corporate privatization, and total control in pursuit of the final goals of Agenda 21.

UN WORLD FOOD PROGRAM

The UN WFP (World Food Program) receives most of its funding from USAID.

The WFP is corrupt to its core, as evidenced by a leaked UN document about Somalia which exposed that most of the aid goes to UN workers, Islamic militants and contractors.(6) Another example is in Ethiopia where only 12% of the food aid was delivered to the intended poverty stricken area. Additionally, there are more examples of corruption with shipping and trucking fees inflated up to 300% over cost. Of course, NGOs are deeply complicit in this international scheme of theft and incompetence with zero accountability.

Further, USAID director, Rajiv Shah worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the USDA, is also the director of A Green Revolution in Africa (Gates and Rockefeller funded). In fact, just last week, Shah said that the UN WFP is creating food systems that will eliminate “humanitarian” food aid over time; a cynic could interpret this as a depopulation plan, consolidation of monopolies and/ or privatization of all resources. Shah also wants to engage the private sector, which means establishing more PPPs (Public- Private Partnerships) which is the modern mechanism of fascism.(7)(5)

UN collectivists, trying to coerce governments to adopt GMOs, use urgent threats of starvation in poor countries to convince the masses that GMOs are beneficial, when the truth is that they have lower crop yields. The WFP, pushing GMOs, have exploited Africa’s famine problem by offering GMO seeds as the only aid/ help offered, in a ‘GM or Death’ ultimatum.[8]

UN WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The UN WTO (World Trade Organization) influences tariffs and can impose fines (of hundreds of millions of dollars) on countries when they trade internationally. While they promote the phrase “free trade”, it is anything but a free market, due to the favorable or unfavorable tariff taxes that the WTO sets. It fosters monopolies on a grand scale. It prohibits competition and true free market Capitalism.

F. William Engdahl, author of “Seeds of Destruction”, explains in detail how the Biosafety Protocol, a policy that requiring GMO testing and proof of safety, was undermined. This was done by forcing a clause into the Biosafety Protocol making its rules subordinate to the UN WTO, using the argument that banning GMOs was a barrier to trade under the WTO rules, because the concern over safety was “unproven”. Therefore, the burden of proof for the safety of GMOs was removed from Monsanto and the other manufacturers, which leaves consumers, independent farmers and anyone else harmed by GMOs the costly task of proving, scientifically and in court, that GMOs are unsafe.

In a related UN WTO decision, member countries were forbidden from using their own domestic standards for testing, their own food safety laws and their own product standards, claiming that it would set an “unfair barrier to trade”. Thus, the US government can threaten any government that bans GMOs with violating UN WTO so-called “free trade” rules which have resulted in costly monetary sanctions. The UN WTO settles international trade disputes in secret. Please read Engdahl’s excellent article about the WTO for more information on their manipulative policies.(9)

Incidentally, the Director of the WTO is Rufus Yerxa, former employee of the the US government and Monsanto. Vandana Shiva explains how the WTO imposed trade restrictions on India that limited exports and increased imports, crippling the market and increasing food dependency. The GMO crops also had lower yields because the seed was imported and not adaptable to India’s farming conditions, which resulted in the suicides of over 200,000 Indian farmers- often from drinking Round Up Ready herbicide. (Note that we do not agree with Shiva’s assessment of global warming):

The UN NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and other WTO agreements were signed introduced into law as “agreements”, instead of treaties. Under special legislation, NAFTA was passed into law after Congress authorized George W Bush to enter into tariff agreements and bypassed the usual process to make a treaty a law (requiring 2/3 Senate approval). After Bush entered into the agreements, both houses of Congress passed them into law (a mere 51% majority was needed) on a fast- track. The Supreme Court, acting as agents of the federal government, denied review of this misdeed.(10)

NAFTA has adversely affected both the US and Mexico because it promoted GMO farming in Mexico, contaminating their corn crops, which is a staple food. US grain and food subsidies were used to lower the prices of US food, which flooded the markets of Mexico, wreaking havoc on them. The subsidies were bankrolled by the unsuspecting US taxpayers. Mexico was once food self sufficient, but now it spends 78% of its oil exports to purchase food from the US. US food exports have decreased as a result of NAFTA because some educated countries reject GMOs.(11)

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

The UN IMF (International Monetary Fund) and UN World Bank are sister agencies that impose harsh conditions and penalties on loans made to governments, resulting in austerity and privatization. In fact, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner in 2001, former chief economist of the World Bank and formerly one of President Clinton’s economists, exposed the corruption of the UN IMF and World Bank’s practice of keeping developing countries on the loan repayment treadmill, which can lead to harsh measures when the countries fail to repay the loan, instead of allowing a country to go bankrupt and then start over. In 2003, The IMF actually admitted that its policies have often failed for over 60 years.(12)

The IMF and World Bank, working closely with the WTO, offer financial aid and guarantees to multinational companies to privatize in poor countries. Even worse, the IMF and World Bank pressure countries, crippled by debt, to privatize utilities and other resources, especially water. Remember, water is a resource that affects food production. The US Treasury funds 51% of the World bank. The UN derives much power from indebted countries and then is able to make outrageous demands upon the debtor nations, that then benefit corporations and individuals like Bill Gates.(13)

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

Codex Alimentarius, the UN program to control food and health products internationally with the goal of HARMonization of food, means that plants, seeds, livestock, farming and how all food is processed is to become uniform. Of course, GMO food is a major component of this scheme. Codex Alimentarius is a program to codify food worldwide; it won’t work because there is a lack of consideration for local conditions (local weather, soil conditions, water availability, etc). This appears to be just plain stupid until one realizes its true intent: depopulation. Codex Alimentarius operates under two UN agencies: the WHO (World Health Organization), notorious for pushing unsafe vaccines for the H1N1 flu and insider deals with Big Pharma, and the corrupt FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Kevin Miller’s excellent film “We Become Silent” is recommended for more details.(14)

There are several unpopular US “food safety” bills currently under consideration. By simply reading the short summary of Senate bill S 510, it is clear that the bill is not designed for food safety, but for government (Department of Health and Human Services, the EPA and the CDC) expansion, control and monetary gain. There are only a few representatives in Washington that are even remotely interested in true food safety and a real solution, which would include the abolition of GMOs, or at least the labeling of GMO food, so that consumers can make an informed choice. Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on June 10, 2010 that opens the door to Codex Alimentarius.(15)

In conclusion, it is obvious that the time is over-ripe for the US to get out of the UN. This action would result in the withering of the UN as it is funded primarily by US tax dollars. The American people will hopefully come to understand that our hard earned money is being used to poison and bankrupt us, and the rest of the world. Education of the masses is the key, and Americans must exert our power and sovereignty, especially now, with the November elections right around the corner.

Agenda to reduce global population by at least 80 per cent is not a “conspiracy theory,” it’s a publicly admitted goal of the elite

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comWednesday, June 16, 2010

As part of his obsessive drive to smear anti-big government activists as insanely paranoid and dangerous radicals, Chris Matthews and his guest, establishment neo-lib David Corn, previewed tonight’s “Rise of the New Right” hit piece by claiming that the elite’s agenda to enact dictatorial population control measures was a “conspiracy theory”.

As we have documented on numerous occasions, while Matthews points fingers at his political adversaries for preparing to engage in violence, the only real violence we’re witnessing out on the streets is being committed by Obama supporters, MSNBC thugs and other leftists who refuse to tolerate free speech that counters their propaganda.

However, MSNBC’s goal is not just to demonize the Tea Party and anti-big government activists as dangerous radicals as an avenue through which to sick the police state on them and crush their free speech, they’re also desperate to prevent Americans from lending any credence to what people like Alex Jones have to say by acting as gatekeepers to prevent such information from becoming mainstream.

A perfect example of an issue that Matthews and his ilk want to sideline is the manifestly provable fact that elitists have for decades publicly stated their desire to reduce global population by around 80 per cent and as much as 99 per cent.

During MSNBC’s Hardball show on Tuesday, Corn characterized the notion that “there is a planetary elite that literally has a secret plan to kill 80 to 99 percent of the population,” as a conspiracy theory.

Corn’s role in covering-up the depopulation agenda is unsurprising given his habitual tactic of trying to discredit anyone who exposes government criminality and corruption. One critic labeled Corn as someone who serves, “As a Neo-Con-lite version of someone who dismisses those who have investigated the crimes of the U.S. government,” in reference to how he tried to undermine the work of the late Gary Webb, an award-winning investigative journalist who exposed the CIA’s involvement in the drug trade.

Despite Corn’s claims to the contrary, the global elite have been forthright, public, and unashamedly enthusiastic about their open intention to cull at least 80 per cent of humanity in the name of saving the planet.

There are still large numbers of people amongst the general public, in academia, and especially those who work for the corporate media, who are still in denial about the on-the-record stated agenda for global population reduction, as well as the consequences of this program that we already see unfolding.

We have compiled a compendium of evidence to prove that the elite have been obsessed with eugenics and its modern day incarnation, population control, for well over 100 years and that goal of global population reduction is still in full force to this day.

The World’s Elite Are Discussing Population Reduction

During a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, Gates told the audience that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions to almost zero.

Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

A joint World Health Organization-Rockefeller inoculation program against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines in the early 1990’s was in fact a covert trial on using vaccines to medically abort women’s babies.

“Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG,” writes historian F. William Engdahl in his article, Bill Gates And Neo-Eugenics: Vaccines To Reduce Population. “That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. The tetanus disease was indeed, also rather rare. It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.”

Gates recently announced that he would be funding a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man’s scrotum to render him infertile for six months. “The foundation has funded a new “sweat-triggered vaccine delivery” program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is described as a way to “…develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines,” writes health researcher Mike Adams.

As was reported last year by the London Times, a “secret billionaire club” meeting in early May 2009 which took place in New York and was attended by David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others was focused around “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population”.

We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and “family planning” authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions.

Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

“In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name.”

“The Rockefeller Foundation had long financed the eugenics movement in England, apparently repaying Britain for the fact that British capital and an Englishman-partner had started old John D. Rockefeller out in his Oil Trust. In the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England adopted what they called Crypto-eugenics, stating in their official reports that they would do eugenics through means and instruments not labeled as eugenics.”

“With support from the Rockefellers, the Eugenics Society (England) set up a sub-committee called the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which for 12 years had no other address than the Eugenics Society. This, then, is the private, international apparatus which has set the world up for a global holocaust, under the UN flag.”

In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known as “population control”. This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller’s intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war.

Henry Kissinger: In the now declassified 1974 document, National Security Memorandum 200, Kissinger outlines the plan to use food scarcity as a weapon in order to achieve population reduction in lesser-developed countries.

The document, declassified in 1989, identified 13 countries that were of special interest to U.S. geopolitical objectives and outlined why population growth, and particularly that of young people who were seen as a revolutionary threat to U.S. corporations, was a potential roadblock to achieving these objectives. The countries named were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.

The study outlined how civil disturbances affecting the “smooth flow of needed materials” would be less likely to occur “under conditions of slow or zero population growth.”

“Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action,” states the document.

The document called for integrating “family planning” (otherwise known as abortion) with routine health services for the purposes of “curbing the numbers of LDC people,” (lesser-developed countries).

The report shockingly outlines how withholding food could be used as a means of punishment for lesser-developed countries who do not act to reduce their population, essentially using food as a weapon for a political agenda by creating mass starvation in under-developed countries.

“The allocation of scarce PL480 (food) resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production,” states the document.

Later in the document, the idea of enforcing “mandatory programs” by using food as “an instrument of national power” is presented.

The document states that the program will be administered through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), thereby “avoiding the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed-country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism; this could well create a serious backlash.”

“NSSM 200 was a statement composed after the fact. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. had worked diligently behind the scenes to advance the population-control agenda at the United Nations, contributing the initial funding of $1 million.

"A Department of State telegram, dated July 1969, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III, among others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program. The administrator of the UN Development Program reported confidentially that he preferred someone such as Salas who had the 'advantage of color, religion (Catholic) and conviction.'"

Evidence of the actual consequences of this program can be found with the link between vaccines and sterilization, as well as other diseases such as cancer, in both the west and the third world.

In the following video clips, women of the Akha tribe who live predominately in Thailand, describe how they miscarried shortly after taking vaccines when they were eight months pregnant. The videos below highlight the efforts of supporters of the Akha tribe to get answers from the University of Oregon and the United Nations, who provided funding for the vaccination and sterilization programs.

Further evidence of the link between vaccinations, birth control, cancer and other diseases can be researched here.

In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.

As we have tirelessly documented, the elite’s drive for population control is not based around a benign philanthropic urge to improve living standards, it is firmly routed in eugenics, racial hygiene and fascist thinking.

According to the The London Times report, the secret billionaire cabal, with its interest in population reduction, has been dubbed ‘The Good Club’ by insiders. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the time to properly research the origins of the “population control” movement will come to understand that the Rockefeller-Turner-Gates agenda for drastic population reduction, which is now clearly manifesting itself through real environmental crises like chemtrails, genetically modified food, tainted vaccines and other skyrocketing diseases such as cancer, has its origins in the age-old malevolent elitist agenda to cull the human “chattel” as one would do to rodents or any other species deemed a nuisance by the central planning authorities.

Sterilization And Eugenics Returns In Popular Culture

We are now seeing the return of last century’s eugenicist movement through the popular promotion of sterilization as a method of birth control.

A popular women’s magazine in the UK recently featured an article entitled, Young, Single and Sterilized, in which women in their 20’s discussed why they had undergone an operation to prevent them from ever having children. The article is little more than PR for a “women’s charity” called Marie Stopes International, an organization that carries out abortions and sterilizations and was founded by a Nazi eugenicist who advocated compulsory sterilization of non-whites and “those of bad character”.

In the article, sterilization is lauded as an “excellent method of birth control” by Dr. Patricia Lohr of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

The article includes an advertisement that encourages women to seek “more information about sterilization” by contacting Marie Stopes International. We read that, “Over the past year, a quarter of the women who booked a sterilization consultation with women’s charity Marie Stopes were aged 30 or under.”

Marie Stopes was a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized.

Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Marie Stopes, the Nazi and pioneering eugenicist who sent love letters to Hitler, honored recently by the Royal Mail.

Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.” In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.

While the issue of abortion is an entirely different argument, most would agree that no matter how extreme it sounds, a woman has the right to sterilize herself if she so chooses, just as a man has the right to a vasectomy.

But when a magazine aimed primarily at young women all but encourages girls as young as 20 to have their fallopian tubes tied in order to prevent the “irritation” of children entering their lives and then advertises an organization founded by a Nazi eugenicist that can perform the operation, something has to be amiss.

Even more shocking than this is the fact that the majority of people in the UK routinely express their support for society’s “undesirables” to be forcibly sterilized by the state, harking back to a time when such a thing was commonplace right up to the 1970’s in some areas of America and Europe.

As we highlighted at the time, respondents to a Daily Mail article about Royal Mail honoring Marie Stopes by using her image on a commemorative stamp were not disgusted at Royal Mail for paying homage to a racist Nazi eugenicist, but were merely keen to express their full agreement that those deemed not to be of pure genetic stock or of the approved character should be forcibly sterilized and prevented from having children.

“A lot of people should be sterilized, IMO. It’s still true today,” wrote one.

“Just imagine what a stable, well-ordered society we’d have if compulsory sterilisation had been adopted years ago for the socially undesirable,” states another respondent, calling for a “satellite-carried sterilisation ray” to be installed in space to zap the undesirables.

Shockingly, another compares sterilization and genocide of those deemed inferior to the breeding and culling of farmyard animals, and says that such a move is necessary to fight overpopulation and global warming. Here is the comment in full from “Karen” in Wales;

We breed farm animals to produce the best possible stock and kill them when they have fulfilled their purpose. We inter-breed pedigree animals to produce extremes that leave them open to ill-health and early death. It is only religion that says humans are not animals. The reality is that we are simply intelligent, mammalian primates.

The world population of humans has increased from 2 billion to 6.5 billion in the last 50 years. This planet can support 2 billion humans comfortably. 6.5 billion humans use too many resources and leads to global warming, climate change and a very uncertain future for all of us – humans and all other life sharing this planet with us.

Marie Stopes believed in population control and in breeding the best possible humans. So did Hitler. Neither of the aims are bad in themselves. It is how they are achieved that is the problem. The fact that we still remember Marie Stopes is an achievement in itself.

The nature of these comments is so fundamentally sick and twisted that one is tempted to dismiss them as a joke – but these people are deadly serious. Presumably they would also agree with China’s one child policy, which is routinely enforced by intimidation as young pregnant women are grabbed off the streets by state goons and taken to hospitals where forced abortions are carried out.

Now with popular women’s magazines advising women in their 20’s where they can go to be sterilized and ensure a lifetime of partying and carefree sex, it’s no surprise that experts predict that by 2010 one in four western women will be child free for life.

The yearning to have children is the most beautiful, natural and innate emotion either a man or a woman can possibly experience. That is not to say that it’s always wrong for some people not to have children – extreme circumstances can justify such a decision. But to have yourself sterilized because you find children to be an “irritant” and want to live a life free of responsibility or consequences is an awful message to send to young women, especially in the sex-saturated entertainment culture that we are now forced to endure.

Furthermore, the outright promotion of Marie Stopes International as ‘the place to go’ to get sterilized if you’re under 30 is stomach-churning considering the fact that the origins of this organization can be found in Nazi ideology, racist and backward early 20th century eugenics and a long-standing agenda to cull the population of undesirables, an abhorrent belief still held by elites across the planet today.

Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia

One such individual who embraces the notion that humans are a virus that should be wiped out en masse for the good of mother earth is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin.

Dr Erik Pianka, the American biologist who advocated the mass genocide of 90% of the human race and was applauded by his peers.

During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

Pianka’s speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.

Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.

Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide. “And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”

Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of the avian flu virus and spoke glowingly of China’s enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

At the end of Pianka’s speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clambered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.

Indeed, the notion that the earth’s population needs to be drastically reduced is a belief shared almost unanimously by academics across the western hemisphere.

In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on newly uncovered documents detailing Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet’s plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia.

From the article;

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

The Victorian-born immunologist, who headed the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1960. He died in 1985 but his theories on immunity and “clonal selection” provided the basis for modern biotechnology and genetic engineering.

Controversy surrounding the comments of another darling of scientific academia, geneticist James Watson, who told a Sunday Times newspaper interviewer that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites, should come as no surprise to those who are aware of Watson’s role in pushing the dark pseudo-science of eugenics.

Watson told the interviewer that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

Watson was the Head of the Human Genome Project until 1992 and is best known for his contribution to the discovery of DNA, an achievement that won him the Nobel Peace prize in 1962.

But what most people are unaware of is the fact that Watson has played an integral role in advancing the legitimacy of the eugenics/population reduction movement for decades.

Watson is a strong proponent of genetic screening, a test to determine whether a couple is at increased risk of having a baby with a hereditary genetic disorder.

Since such screening obviously increases the rate of abortions of babies considered “imperfect,” many have slammed its introduction as nothing more than a camouflage for eugenics or “voluntary eugenics” as British philosophy professor Philip Kitcher labeled it.

Watson’s advocacy of genetic engineering stretched to his call for the “really stupid” bottom 10% of people to be “cured”.

Watson even urged woman to be given carte blanche to abort babies should tests determine that they are likely to be homosexual, despite the vast body of evidence indicating homosexuality is a result of environment rather than genetic code.

The geneticist has gone so far as to promote the idea of creating a kind of Nazi super-race, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions.

“People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great,” said Watson.

Dr. Erik Pianka’s doomsday warning of the population bomb, for which he presented no evidence whatsoever, is complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and aside from this, world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. Conservation International’s own study revealed that 46% of the earth’s surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea.

Think about the magnitude of Pianka’s statements. He wants to kill nine out of every ten members of your family and he wants to kill them in one of the most painful and agonizing ways imaginable.

If Pianka, or ‘The Lizard Man’ as he likes to be called, is so vehement in embracing the necessity of culling the human population will he step forward to be the first one in line? Will he sacrifice his children for the so-called greater good of the planet? We somehow doubt it.

Will the students and other top academics who so enthusiastically greeted his ideas go home and kill themselves for the cause if it is so righteous?

It was noted how Pianka presented his argument with the kind of glee that you would see in a demented serial killer before dispatching his victim. This is an attitude we have encountered again and again. To discuss killing 90% of the world’s population via a horrific plague is sick enough within itself but you would at least expect its advocates to be serious and sober in their approach to the subject. The opposite seems to be the case, where the subject is aired in a context of lighthearted lip-smacking and hand-rubbing as if the individual was about to sink his teeth into a juicy T-bone steak.

This window gives us a clear view of exactly why these deranged bastards encompass this ideology. They love death and their lives are motivated by dark influences very different to you or I.

Throughout history, elites have invented justifications for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations.

More Examples Of Population Reduction & Eugenics

From 1932 until 1972, the Tuskegee Study Group (pictured below) deliberately infected poor black communities in Alabama with syphilis without their consent and withheld treatment as the diseased rampaged through the town killing families.

In 1951 the Israeli government used US government provided technology to irradiate 100,000 Jewish children in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths used as guinea pigs. 6,000 died immediately after the experiments and the rest suffered for the rest of their lives with debilitating illnesses and cancer.

As we have documented, members of the elite are quite open in their feverish lust to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing. In the foreword to his biography If I Were An Animal, Prince Philip, another closet Nazi, wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

This is just one of many on the record statements where Prince Philip has advocated his desire to “cull” the surplus human population. In another speech, he even lambasted the fact that lives were saved in Sri Lanka through Malaria treatments because it meant there were three times as many mouths to feed.

One of the most chilling admissions of the elitists’ deadly intent to forcibly commit genocide to reduce global population came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:

“The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer….”

“This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”

It is important to stress that this essay merely scratches the surface of both the stated goals of global population reduction from elitists and insiders, along with concrete examples of these programs being carried out. We could not possibly list them all in one article because this would take a book the length of an encyclopedia.

Further information is covered in Alex Jones’s Endgame, a pertinent segment from which can be viewed below.

Listed below is a compendium of quotes from elitists who have time and again expressed their intent to see humanity culled by 80 per cent or more. Some come from the progenitors of the eugenicist movement and others from elitists and organizations who are still very much active and in positions of influence.

Please note: this is the JANUARY/FEBRUARY Issue of the CFR's propaganda rag "Foreign Affairs".If you still think Eugenics is 'history' - read this; it basically outlines their view of the future of the 'aging' population in the US; including a suggestion that people over retirement age might want to move to 3rd world countries, to make room (and lessen the 'burden' of healthcare) for the 3rd world younger 'working' population to take up residence.

And no wonder the feds won't enforce immigration laws...

It's because they want we the people to GTFOut of the US.

Logged

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Matthew 25:40

There has been much in the mainstream news recently about population control. In fact, there seems to be a concerted effort by the Elite to introduce the idea as a legitimate debate about dealing with the “problem” of over-population. It appears the elite are trying to legitimize these claims using the global warming argument that CO2, which humans exhale, must be minimized at all costs.

Understandably, the notion that a small group of powerful people is consciously and methodically trying to kill off the majority of the population is a tough pill to swallow. Incidentally, people who refuse to question the events of September 11th usually do so for one reason: they don’t want to believe that the conspirators would kill over 3000 innocent people to advance their agenda. However, what has taken place in the aftermath of 9/11 seems to prove the true nature of the Elite in regards to how little they value human life.

For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knowingly lied about the air quality at ground zero, which has caused countless more illnesses and deaths among brave first responders, much like the EPA is now lying about the air quality surrounding the Gulf oil spill. Additionally, the attack on 9/11 spurred America’s preemptive, unprovoked, unsubstantiated wars for profit and resources in Iraq and Afghanistan where an estimated 1.5 million innocent people have been killed.

Concerned researchers have tried to warn the public for decades that depopulation plans were indeed happening in stealth, quoting members of the ruling class like Rockefeller and others who clearly had motivation to implement them.

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” — Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund, quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December, 1995.

Or, more recently, Ted Turner, CNN founder and UN supporter told PBS’s Charlie Rose in April, 2008, “We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming . . . too many people are using too much stuff.” Couple this with his June, 1996 statement well before the general public was aware of “global warming” in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

In the third world, Turner has contributed billions to population reduction, through United Nations programs, paving the way for others like of Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett. These same figures have also donated vast sums of money to Planned Parenthood and vaccination programs that many have identified as methods of population control.

Now that the public is becoming more aware of the malevolent nature of the Elite, it is becoming easier to believe the evidence of their sinister “population control” plans. These ingenious techniques include poisoning the food, water, air, and drugs as identified in Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb, “One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size (p.130-131).” The Elite’s previously secret “soft kill” methods have been in place for decades and are now verifiable by the general public.

After years of using humans as cannon fodder abroad and domestic soft kill methods mainly through sterilization programs, it now seems obvious that humans are nothing more than sheep for slaughter to feed the Elite. Behind each one of these methods, we find the same Elite multinational companies working in concert with elements of the government that are supposed to look out for the public’s best interests like the EPA, FDA, and the DHS. Furthermore, we can expect the Elite to ramp up the mainstream population debate under the auspices of Climate Change as the Gulf oil disaster brings Cap and Trade legislation back to the forefront.

The Food & Depopulation series of articles has been written for people who think that conspiracies are mere theories, that the American government is working in our best interest and that the United Nations is benevolent. Nothing could be further from the truth; irrefutable proof of this is explained in the previous three articles. Sharing the truth about food is an exceptionally effective way to wake people up because all people have a personal relationship with food every day. Here are the important points to remember:

1. The US Department of Agriculture holds a patent on the ‘Terminator’ gene (the seed goes sterile after the first harvest) which has the potential to destroy all plant life on the planet. This patent is co-owned by Monsanto.

2. The US Supreme Court has studiously avoided trying any anti-GMO cases, despite the obvious health dangers to people and contamination of farms by cross pollination. On June 21, 2010 the Supreme Court lifted the nationwide ban growing GMO alfalfa due to its potential to contaminate other farms, pending a Environmental Impact Study (EIS) performed by the US Department of Agriculture. We predicted 2 weeks ago that the Supreme Court justices would rule in favor of Monsanto as they collect their paychecks from the federal government. If sanity had prevailed and the ban on polluting GMOs was upheld, the result would have put the USDA’s Terminator gene patent in peril, countless prior court cases would have to be overturned and an avalanche of new lawsuits against Monsanto may have bankrupted the company. The federal government and Monsanto are so deeply intertwined that we expect the USDA’s EIS, which they expect to finish by next Spring, to allow planting of the contaminating GMO alfalfa.

The Supreme Court refused to hear any of the facts regarding the dangers and past record of contamination; lone dissenter Justice Stevens said, “the district court did not abuse its discretion when, after considering the voluminous record and making the aforementioned findings, it issued the order now before us.” In other words, Stevens reports that the lower district court’s GMO alfalfa ban was put into place due to voluminous records of contamination to other farms, but this was not taken into consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only considered the national GMO alfalfa ban was “too broad”, without examining the damaging effects of contamination. This was a slippery move because if they had considered the devastating effects of GMOs, it would have been impossible to argue that they are safe. And the corrupt USDA will issue its EIS to determine the safety. The remote potential upside to this is that the jurisdiction is now in the lower courts, which may be more reasonable, but that means more lawsuits and more money.(1)

3. The United Nations is corrupt to its core and its programs are designed for depopulation, total control and profit. UN Agenda 21 is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control, using the environment and sustainability as the excuse for its policies.

4. The Rockefeller family has been pursuing control over food for decades, using monopolies and government structures that are funded by taxpayers through complex schemes that they have created to accomplish this goal.

NGO SCAM:

NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations), in the modern definition, spring from the United Nations and act as ‘consultants’ to the UN; no government representatives are allowed as members. However, NGOs are hardly independent as most of them are funded by governments. In other words, our tax dollars are paying for our own demise. This is how the scam works: • NGOs create policy statements to be adopted by the UN that become international policy. NGOs then receive money from the UN. • The UN policies are then are pushed the on national governments who then fund the globalist programs with money from taxes.

* The NGOs then lobby governments and the public to implement the programs, using misguided public pressure that they create by fooling people into believing that UN policies benefit the population (like local government acceptance of global warming regulations. These are based on lies and sold to the public by way of alarmism over environmental catastrophe). They are dispatched in your community with specific targeted agendas. Local government contracts with organizations like the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) insure local implementation of these globalist objectives.

* US government Advisory Committees are comprised of UN affiliated NGOs, businesses and organizations, while no Advisory Committees represent the American citizens’ interests.

* UN accredited NGOs are well funded and try to discredit populist organizations that oppose them. UN affiliated NGOs began when eugenicist Julian Huxley created the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), which created a more public spin-off, the WWF (World Wildlife Federation) and a third one called the WRI (World Resources Institute which is a think tank and communication network). These three NGOs are the driving force and behind the rise in NGO influence around the world. For full details, you can read the excellent analysis by Maryetta Ables.(2)

NGOs are treacherous and they lie. While an NGO may take the right action with one hand, the other hand is reaching out and grabbing your liberty by allocating its vast resources to advance the UN agenda. For example, the IUCN, the center of all UN NGOs, claims on their website that they have a moratorium on further release of GMOs, which makes them seem like they are against GMOs. GMOs have already contaminated much of the world, so a moratorium on further release of GMOs is a feeble attempt to rid the world of GMOs and NGOs pretend they have no power when more regulations are created to advance the UN agenda.(3)

Instead of taking serious action to combat GMOs, the IUCN allocates their resources toward promoting ‘biodiversity’, (the theft of private property by way of the Endangered Species Act) and global warming, which has been thoroughly discredited.(4)

The WWF keeps a low profile on their website about GMOs, but the WWF does fully endorse GMOs.(5)

Greenpeace is a UN accredited NGO, and like all UN affiliated NGO’s Greenpeace is dedicated to the policies of the UN’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. In order to appear that they are working in the public’s interest, they oppose GMOs and have taken some small actions, like publicizing the dangers of GMOs and pressuring the Trader Joe’s food chain stores into refusing GMO food for their private label. However, their opposition to GMOs, according to Michael Shaw of www.FreedomAdvocates.org, is an example of painting themselves as a public interest group to cover up their true intent, the implementation of Agenda 21. On their website they endorse global warming lies and energy restrictions that support consolidation of globalist power. While their website claims that they do not “solicit” contributions from governments or corporations, there is proof that they have received grants from the Tides Foundation (Rockefeller Foundation is major a contributor), BP Oil and Exxon, but these ‘donors’ are not listed on their website. In other words, Greenpeace, along with many other environmental NGOs, receive “donations” from globalists and funnel money into other like-minded NGOs and “non-profit” organizations to accomplish Agenda 21.(6)

THE “NON-PROFIT” SCAM:

“Non-Profit” organizations and foundations are anything but not-for-profit! A more accurate definition is that they are tax exempt. What is it they don’t want you to know? Many, if not most are funded by governments, NGOs and “philanthropic” foundations. Tax exempt non-profit 501(c)3 organizations and foundations owe it to the American taxpayer to clearly and publicly disclose who their donors are because they benefit from a tax free status, but it is rare to find this information on their websites or on the Internet.

Michael Shaw pointed out that tax exempt organizations are increasing exponentially in order to capitalize on government funding, however, this makes tax exempt organizations beholden to the government. Public- Private Partnerships, or the coupling between government and private enterprise is the foundation of fascism. Non profits often fit the political–economic definition of Public-Private Partnership.

“Philanthropic” tax exempt foundations have been working toward the destruction of America for many decades. In the 1950’s a Congressional investigation into the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations was conducted with scandalous results, so the information was suppressed. However, G. Edward Griffin was able to obtain an interview with Senator Norman Dodd, one of the lead investigators, on video and in a written transcript available in the footnote below.(7)

Some “non-profit” tax exempt 501(c)3 organizations have been known to engage in controlled opposition. For example, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) represented farmers in opposition to Monsanto in the Supreme Court GMO alfalfa case and in many other anti-GMO cases. While we have no way of knowing whether Andrew Kimbrell, the Executive Director of CFS and his brother George (of counsel) performed solid work in opposing Monsanto or whether they sandbagged the endeavor, there are reports that CFS and its parent company have taken in $1.75 million dollars from the John Merck Fund, which has ties to the Rockefeller Family Fund. Andrew Kimbrell of CFS filed a petition with the EPA to ban colloidal silver which is a natural antibiotic agent with many benefits that competes directly with Merck’s dubious pharmaceutical drugs. This organization has the appearance of working in the public’s interest, but in a separate action, it has operated in opposition to public benefit.[8]

Further, Andrew Kimbrell reported reported a “success” in the Supreme Court GMO alfalfa ruling. He said that GMO alfalfa is still illegal to plant. While this is true today, the USDA has only to complete its Environmental Impact Study in order to approve the seeds.(9)

How to check websites of NGOs, Non-Profits and Foundations for corruption:

* Check out which actions they support. If they champion the global warming hoax, then they are likely to be compromised.

* Check the organization and the Board of Directors for UN and Rockefeller connections.

* Look for certain buzz words related to Agenda 21.(10)

Beware as almost all major environmental groups are pursuing the objectives of Agenda 21, even when they oppose GMOs. It is important to do a little bit of research to determine their motives to avoid being fooled.

FOOD SOLUTIONS:

Here are some suggestions to eat healthy food, starve the corporate giants and create self-sufficiency:

Watch this amazing video of a family that turned their yard into a farm and earn money selling produce to restaurants:

Natural seeds are scarce and could be a good item for investment or barter. The number of seed companies has dwindled from approximately 300 down to 100 due to corporate buy-outs (primarily by Monsanto).

Support farmers’ markets and local farms. Avoid imports to discourage food dependency. America is resource rich and there is no excuse for becoming dependent. Also, this limits the power of the WTO.

Plant your own organic garden. You can use diatomaceous earth instead of pesticides and nets to keep larger pests out of the garden.

If you don’t have a yard, find a neighbor who wants a garden and then share the food.

Join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) group that delivers fresh produce to a pick up location in your town; there are many listings for these on the Internet. This is a good idea because if there is a food shortage, the farmer will be more willing to help someone who supported him.

Remote farming- there is farm in Oregon that leases land, does the farming for you and then ships the food to you.(11)

Watch this video of Shelly Roche of ByteStyle.tv as she reports that the anti-GMO food market is booming:

A letter to the Editor of Off the Grid News from someone who lives in Tasmania describes how he copes with Codex Alimentarius, and reports that Australia was the guinea pig for this UN program starting 6 years ago. Supplements are not allowed ($60,000 penalty) and food is restricted, so he grows his own in old rainwater tanks to keep animals out and uses composted cow manure. He says that he gets an unbelievable bounty. This letter is worth reading because he claims that the food grown in Australia is exported and replaced by cheap imports from China, in addition to food being destroyed to keep prices high.(12)

We recommend obtaining information from people like Scott Tips and Jeffrey Smith for GMO truth.(13)

It is of the utmost importance that farmers become aware of the Monsanto licensing agreement trap, it is crucial that they fully understand that once they plant GMO seed, they will be stuck paying patent royalties even if they don’t use GMO products after the initial planting. America’s farmers must comprehend how Monsanto operates in order to avoid paying infinite royalties; if they buy cheap Monsanto seeds now, they will pay for it dearly later. Please share these articles with them.

POLITICAL SOLUTIONS:

Bad science must be exposed. ‘Climategate’ was very successful in revealing global warming lies and motives. All science attached to political policies should be scrutinized. The USDA’s upcoming EIS (Environmental Impact Study) is due soon, and must be investigated as there is no way GMOs will be approved unless the EIS is based on fraudulent science or some other loophole is used.

Remember monopolies are dependent on governmental regulations [factual correction: they're dependent on privileges -- see this, this and this], so the way to break a monopoly is to remove the regulations privileges.

Beware of all NGOs and so-called “non-profit” organizations. If they want your support, they should provide financial information readily and you can research them online. The secret scams and motives must be exposed.

With the November elections coming up, it is of vital importance to choose government officials wisely and to avoid being fooled by the Right/ Left paradigm. State and local governments are very powerful and you have more influence with them. Look for freedom candidates with Constitutional values and who oppose GMOs, Agenda 21, the United Nations and the globalist consolidation of power.

Share this information with everyone you know and create a voting coalition that includes citizens and businesses, especially at state and local levels. Word-of-mouth marketing is the more effective than anything else (even TV), so please share this information, especially candidates who may be unaware of Agenda 21.

Start locally and expand upward in securing freedom. The federal government is remote, but state and local officials are more accessible. Consider running for office. Support the Tenth Amendment and State sovereignty. Support local bans on planting GMO crops in your area.

You can visit Michael Shaw’s website at www.FreedomAdvocates.org for more information on securing liberty at a local level and for understanding the tentacles of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. His site is a great place to find out how to take action.

Please visit Cassandra Anderson’s website at www.MorphCity.com to find the prior three articles on ‘Food & Depopulation’ and future articles about solutions.